State of Maine's Environment 2012

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

______Colby Environmental Policy Group

Colby College

Environmental Studies Program

Waterville, Maine

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

State of Maine's Environment 2012

Colby Environmental Policy Group

Carla Aronsohn Garrison Beck Kaitlyn Bernard Jackson Broadbent Lindsay Garrard Siya Hegde Ginny Keesler Laramie Maxwell Noah Teachy

The State of Maine's Environment is a series of reports written and produced by the Colby Environmental Policy Group, senior environmental policy majors at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. This is the seventh State of Maine's Environment report created by students enrolled in ES 493: Environmental Policy Practicum taught by Philip J. Nyhus, Associate Professor of Environmental Studies at Colby College.

Suggested Citation for Full Report: Colby Environmental Policy Group. 2012. State of Maine’s Environment 2012. Waterville, Maine: Colby College Environmental Studies Program.

Contact: Philip J. Nyhus, Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Colby College, Waterville, ME 04901

Electronic Version of Report: http://web.colby.edu/stateofmaine2012/

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following individuals for their help and support with our research for the State of Maine's Environment 2012 report:

Kathy Eickenberg Chief of Planning, Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands Wolfe Tone Maine State Director, The Trust for Public Land R. Collin Therrien Senior Planner, Maine Dept. of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry Chris Pryor Conservation Easement Monitoring Coordinator and Forester, New England Forestry Foundation Warren Whitney Land Trust Program Manager, Maine Coast Heritage Trust Theresa Kerchner Executive Director, Kennebec Land Trust Cathy Johnson North Woods Project Director, Natural Resources Council of Maine Monica Erhard Linkage Coordinator, Staying Connected Initiative Dan Coker GIS Analyst / Conservation, The Nature Conservancy Emmie Theberge Clean Energy and Global Warming Outreach Coordinator, Natural Resources Council of Maine Dylan Voorhees Clean Energy and Global Warming Project Director, Natural Resources Council of Maine Matt Kearns Vice President Development Northeast, First Wind Abby King Toxics Policy Advocate, Natural Resources Council of Maine Harold Nilsson Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management, Maine Department of Environmental Protection Roy Krout Sustainability Unit, Maine Department of Environmental Protection Maggie Shannon Maine Congress of Lake Associations Pat Sirois Director, Maine's Sustainable Forestry Initiative Andy Shultz Landowner Outreach Forester, Maine Forest Service Greg Miller GIS Programmer Analyst for the Maine Forest Service Rob Lilieholm E.L. Giddings Associate Professor of Forest Policy, University of Maine Ken Olsen Friends of Acadia Pete Didisheim Senior Director of Advocacy, Natural Resources Council of Maine

From Colby College we acknowledge the help of: Philip Nyhus Associate Professor of Environmental Studies Manny Gimond GIS and Quantitative Analysis Specialist Lia Morris Environmental Studies Coordinator Leah Powley Student Assistant, Environmental Studies Program Russ Cole Chair, Environmental Studies Program Tom Tietenberg Mitchell Family Professor of Economics (Emeritus) Patricia Murphy Director, Physical Plant Department Dale DeBlois Environmental Program Manager, Physical Plant Department Travis Reynolds Environmental Studies Program

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 3

Table of Contents ...... 5

Executive Summary ...... 7

Introduction ...... 9

The State of Large Landscape Conservation in Maine ...... 11 Executive Summary ...... 11 Introduction ...... 11 Methods ...... 18 Laws and Institutions ...... 18 State of Large Landscape Conservation ...... 25 Implications ...... 46 Scenarios ...... 53 Conclusions ...... 55 Recommendations ...... 55 Works Cited ...... 56

The State of Energy Infrastructure in Maine...... 63 Executive Summary ...... 63 Introduction ...... 63 Methods ...... 67 Laws and Institutions ...... 68 Stakeholders ...... 71 State of Electricity Transmission in Maine ...... 78 State of Natural Gas Transmission in Maine ...... 80 Implications ...... 85 Scenarios ...... 89 Recommendations ...... 91 Works Cited ...... 94

The State of Industrial Hazardous Waste in Maine ...... 97 Executive Summary ...... 97 Introduction ...... 97 Methods ...... 100 Laws and Institutions ...... 101 Stakeholders ...... 107 State of Industrial Hazardous Waste ...... 109 Scenarios ...... 127 Conclusions ...... 128 Recommendations ...... 129

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Appendices ...... 130 Works Cited ...... 133

The State of Voluntary Certification Programs in Maine ...... 137 Executive Summary ...... 137 Introduction ...... 137 Methods ...... 143 Laws and Institutions ...... 145 Stakeholders ...... 150 State of LakeSmart ...... 155 State of Forest Certification ...... 159 State of LEED ...... 164 Implications ...... 171 Scenarios ...... 172 Conclusions ...... 174 Recommendations ...... 174 Works Cited ...... 175

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Executive Summary The State of Maine's Environment is a set of reports written by senior environmental policy majors enrolled in the ES493 practicum at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. The course is taught by Professor Philip J. Nyhus of the Environmental Studies Program. Chapters in this report discuss Large Landscape Conservation, Energy Infrastructure, Industrial Hazardous Waste, and Voluntary Certification Schemes. In each chapter, we explore the history and context of the topic, evaluate its current state, and conclude with major findings, potential scenarios, and policy recommendations.

The first chapter of the report discusses the roles of federal, state, and private conservation lands in Maine’s large landscape conservation. The growth in conservation land throughout the state over the past 25 years and the variety of large landscape initiatives taking place are used to compare Maine’s state of large landscapes to the wider contexts of New England and the Northern Appalachian/Acadian ecoregions. Other findings indicate that private conservation land and growth in conservation easements have made substantial contributions to Maine’s conservation land. As Maine has relatively little federally conserved land, the state’s Governor and congressional delegation are recommended to support the proposed National Park in Maine’s North Woods. Furthermore, as development pressures remain amongst different stakeholders, currently existing federal, state, and private conservation entities must continue to collaborate in order to achieve large landscape conservation goals. Expanding the current conservation easement registry will increase public accessibility and enhance existing forums for discussing the future of Maine’s landscape.

The second chapter of the report discusses the general processes of electricity and natural gas transmission in Maine and how each relates to the production and consumption of energy in the state and New England region. Trends are used to identify specific infrastructure development projects and a number of environmental concerns including climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Through the consideration of various command-and-control and market-based policies aiming to mitigate emissions, recommendations include the upgrade of Maine’s electricity transmission network to accommodate for a growth in renewable energy generation and an investment in clean energy transmission throughout the region. Also, a prudent and incremental shift from oil to a more expansive natural gas transmission network would ensure a sustainable energy future.

The third chapter of the report discusses the processes of generation, transportation, and disposal of industrial hazardous waste in Maine. The majority of the state’s hazardous waste is generated primarily by military facilities, with the most common waste types including lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Although large industrial corporations generate the bulk of industrial hazardous waste, the number of small businesses generating hazardous

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

wastes is also significant. Maine exports 11 times more hazardous waste than it imports and while it does not contain any disposal facilities of its own, it does contain three treatment and storage facilities. Maine is a national leader in its waste product stewardship initiatives, and although it handles and disposes of relatively minimal hazardous waste, it should further incentivize industrial hazardous waste reduction and expand its Green Certification Programs to include larger corporations producing greater quantities of hazardous waste.

The fourth and final chapter of the report assesses four voluntary certification programs in Maine that vary in their goals, scope of potential, and standards: LakeSmart, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). Six criteria were developed to draw conclusions on the programs, including measures of transparency, specificity, and funding sources. By considering economic, social, and environmental concerns, voluntary certification programs demonstrate the capacity to significantly benefit environmental sustainability in Maine. A certification advisory board would help Maine adopt global and national standards, and annual reports provided by each program would increase transparency and enhance the consumer demand for programs. As a gap in governmental regulation of environmentally sustainable practices has contributed to the rise in Maine’s voluntary certification programs, the state government is recommended to provide more funding and support to influence their future success.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Introduction The State of Maine’s Environment 2012 is written by senior environmental studies policy majors at Colby College in Maine. This report is the seventh in a series that addresses important environmental issues in Maine. The topics covered in this report are the state of: large landscape conservation, energy infrastructure, industrial hazardous waste, and voluntary certification programs. In addition to assessment within the state, we evaluate how Maine compares to other New England states.

Each chapter follows a similar outline. We provide a historical context, describe selected laws and institutions, involved stakeholders, analyze the current state of the topic, and assess how Maine compares to other New England states. We also provide implications of our findings, future scenarios, and conclusions, and each chapter concludes with policy recommendations based on our findings.

Large landscape conservation, chapter 1, can be described as a collaborative approach that seeks to address environmental problems across large scales bounded not by ownership or political jurisdiction, but by ecological, social, and economic goals. As development threatens to fragment natural landscapes, gaps in habitat and biodiversity loss are two of the most pressing ecological concerns driving large landscape initiatives. In this chapter we explore how fee owned land, conservation easements, and differences among federal, state, and privately owned land influence current and future large landscape patterns in Maine.

The state of energy in Maine is assessed in chapter 2 with a focus on electricity and natural gas transmission. Energy drives the economy and is important to Maine’s environment. Transmission infrastructure not only directly influences the types of energy we have available, but also dictates future energy developments (US Energy Information Administration, 2012). A careful consideration of development in energy infrastructure will allow us to effectively build for tomorrow’s energy needs.

Industrial hazardous waste, chapter 3, is important to ecological and human health. An estimated 94% of total waste generated nationally is improperly handled, which magnifies the threat of potential exposure to humans and/or contamination of the environment (Smith, 2013). In this chapter we assess the production, transmission, and disposal of industrial hazardous waste in Maine to understand where our waste comes from and how it is moved and dispersed.

Lastly, voluntary certification schemes, chapter 4, are soft law mechanisms that contrast with hard law in that they are not regulatory but nonetheless combine the public’s interest in establishing standards of sustainability with mechanisms for the measurement of compliance

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

(Steering Committee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessment of Standards and Certification, 2012). These sustainability standards aim to protect natural resources, and this chapter addresses how certification schemes are used to encourage environmental sustainability using buildings, lakes, and forest products in Maine. We focus on the Green Building Leadership Council’s LEED program, the lake conservation program LakeSmart, and two forest certification schemes, Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) and Forest Sustainability Council (FSC).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The State of Large Landscape Conservation in Maine Garrison Beck, Ginny Keesler, Laramie Maxwell

Executive Summary This chapter, the first in The State of Maine’s Environment 2012, provides a detailed account of the roles of federal, state, and private conservation lands in large landscape conservation in Maine. We examine the growth in conservation land over the past 25 years, distinguishing between fee-owned lands and lands under conservation easement. We analyze a variety of case studies to determine the status of large landscape conservation initiatives. The importance of Maine in the larger contexts of the New England and the Northern Appalachian/Acadian ecoregion is highlighted. We determine that private conservation land and growth in conservation easements have contributed substantially to conservation land throughout the state. We conclude that Maine has relatively little federally conserved land and encourage the Governor and congressional delegation of Maine to support the approval process for the proposed National Park in Maine’s North Woods. Although collaborative conservation projects in Maine have achieved impressive results, development pressures remain. Therefore, currently existing federal, state, and private conservation entities must collaborate to achieve large landscape conservation goals. We recommend supporting and enhancing existing forums for discussing the future of Maine’s landscape as well as expanding the current conservation easement registry to include all conserved land and increase public accessibility.

Introduction In the first chapter of The State of Maine’s Environment 2012, we examine the state of large landscape conservation in Maine and implications for future conservation efforts. Landscape- scale conservation has garnered increasing attention over the last decade as concerns regarding climate change, habitat fragmentation, and loss of biodiversity have grown. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 noted that 11 of the 12 years between 1995 and 2006 were among the 12 warmest years since land surface temperature has been instrumentally recorded (IPCC, 2007). Among the impacts of climate change are implications for species health, persistence, and distribution. According to Butchart et al. (2010), global habitat fragmentation trends are unavailable, but the authors suggest that fragmentation is likely increasing. There does not appear to have been a reduction in rate of biodiversity loss following the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (Butchart et al., 2010; Sachs et al., 2009), and the current rate of extinction due to anthropogenic impacts is considered to be 100 to 1,000 times greater than the natural rate (Rockström et al., 2009).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

These problems cannot be addressed through piecemeal approaches; their impacts transcend boundaries of political jurisdiction and land ownership. We focus on the ecological components of large landscape conservation in Maine, and we position our analysis within a broader socio-economic context.

We define large landscape conservation as a collaborative approach that seeks to address environmental problems across large areas bounded not by ownership or political jurisdiction, but by ecological, social, and/or economic goals. McKinney et al. (2010) describe large landscape conservation as efforts that are multijurisdictional, multipurpose, and multi-stakeholder and that operate at various geographic scales using a variety of governance arrangements.

Land trust, fee-purchased, and conservation easement are all terms used frequently in this report. A land trust is a nonprofit organization seeking to conserve land through acquisition of properties or conservation easements, through assisting other entities in acquisition, or through stewardship of purchased lands or easements (LTA, 2012a). Fee-purchased land refers to land that has been bought outright for conservation purposes. Conservation easements are legal agreements through which landowners donate or sell some or all of their properties’ development rights to governments or land trusts, which become the holder(s). The terms of the easements specify durations of development restrictions.

Large landscape conservation is particularly relevant in Maine because of the state’s geographic position, natural resources, and valuable ecosystems. The majority of Maine is situated within the Northern Appalachian/Acadian ecoregion (Baldwin et al., 2007). The state serves as a corridor between the Canadian section of this ecoregion and the section in New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. Maine is about 90% forested (Maine Forest Service, 2005), and contains the largest contiguous forest area east of the Mississippi River (Acheson and McCloskey, 2008). Northern Maine provides valuable habitat for a variety of wide- ranging and vulnerable species. Southern Maine has high biodiversity despite containing the majority of the state’s population and is part of the northern range of many central New England species (Baldwin et al., 2007). Pressures such as habitat fragmentation have led to the extirpation of 32 native species from Maine, including several keystone species (Wildlands Network, 2009).

Mainers exhibit a strong sense of place in relation to the state’s natural resources. In follow up interviews conducted by the Brookings Institution after the release of Charting Maine’s Future (2006), a landmark study, the majority of respondents said that the greatest achievement of the report was making phrases like “quality place” commonly known in Maine (The Brookings Institution, 2012). Quality place refers to Maine’s “brand” of “livable communities, stunning scenery, and great recreational opportunities” (The Brookings

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Institution, 2006). Maine’s sense of place is rooted in its history of natural resource-based industry, tourism, and recreation.

History of Land Use in Maine Maine’s economy has historically been based on natural resources. The early economy in Maine was led by the shipbuilding and fisheries sectors (Rose, 2003). Fisheries continue to play a large role in the state’s culture and economy. Maine began producing wood pulp in 1868 (Maine Pulp & Paper Association, 2012). Between 1880 and 1885, the state’s pulp production capacity increased from 182 to 1,036 tons per day, and paper production increased from 157 to 508 tons per day (Maine Paper & Pulp Association, 2010). In 1900, Great Northern Paper Company opened what was, at the time, the largest mill in the world (Maine Paper & Pulp Association, 2010). Lumber production peaked in 1909 (Irland, 2000), but paper production continued to increase, and 25% of Maine’s manufacturing population worked in the paper industry by 1970 (MacDougall & Stevens, 2012). Changing land ownership and increasing mechanization have since led to job losses in the timber industry (Lilieholm, 2007).

Nature tourism also has a long history in Maine. Moosehead Lake, the state’s largest lake, has been a center of tourism since the 1800s. Acadia National Park has been an iconic tourist destination for nearly a century. A 2001 report by the North East State Foresters Association found that: “forest-related recreation and tourism expenditures contribute $900 million annually to Maine’s economy.” In 2005, forest-related recreation and tourism revenues reached $1.15 billion (NEFA, 2007). Today, one point of debate over development projects in Maine’s North Woods is whether they will destroy the natural beauty that makes Maine attractive to tourists.

Maine has a history of de facto open land access, in part due to laws that reduce landowner liability (Acheson, 2006; Ginger et al., 2012). For most of the 1900s, land ownership in Maine was dominated by a few vertically-integrated forest products companies that allowed recreational activities on their land (Lilieholm, 2007). Acheson (2006) describes the deep roots of Maine’s culture of open land access:

The public uses large amounts of privately owned land as if it were a common property resource owned by everyone. People hunt on land owned by others, run their snowmobiles and ATVs on it, and use the land for activities such as bird watching and cross country skiing. In northern Maine, people take hiking and canoeing trips in which they camp on land owned by others for days on end. Moreover, many Mainers feel that using the land of others for recreational purposes is one of their traditional rights, and a very large percentage feel little obligation to even ask for permission when they go on someone else’s land to hunt or for a nature walk.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

This history helped cultivate Mainers’ ties to the land and culture of private land ownership. According to a report by the Maine State Planning Office: “The Maine tradition of public access to private land is without parallel in the nation” (LeVert, 2008).

Despite development threats and their personal sense of place, Mainers have remained generally opposed to external forces involved in conservation efforts in Maine. Historical ties to the private sector and the fact that the federal government has never owned much land in Maine have made them wary of federal intervention (Docherty, 2000). Unfortunately, the trajectory of private land ownership in Maine may have negative implications for efforts to prevent habitat degradation and fragmentation. Furthermore, the tradition of open land access that flourished during the era of the paper companies is increasingly replaced with ‘No Trespassing’ signs (LeVert, 2008).

The seven-member Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) was established in 1971 to regulate development for the 10.4 million acres of Maine’s Unorganized Territory (UT). The townships of the UT have little or no government or have decided to forgo administering development regulations. In 2012, the Maine legislature passed An Act to Reform Land Use Planning in the UT, and LURC became the Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC), a nine- member entity. LUPC reviews all rezoning applications, but the permitting of large projects was moved to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and counties may assume some permitting authority if they follow LUPC’s standards (NRCM, 2012).

Early versions of the LURC reform bill would have allowed for counties to opt-out of LURC jurisdiction and for county commissioners to appoint themselves to the Commission (NRCM, 2012; Maine Audubon, 2012). The opt-out provision followed the recommendations of the Commission on Reform of the Governance of Land Use Planning in the Unorganized Territory (2011). Environmental groups and some legislators argued that the provision would severely undermine restraints on development in the UT. Other legislators countered that residents of the UT should be allowed to make their own land use planning decisions.

Changing Land Ownership Land ownership and conservation in Maine have undergone a dramatic shift in the last three decades. In 1988, Diamond International Corporation—a paper company owning large tracts of land in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York—put nearly 1 million acres of land on the market, about 790,000 acres in Maine (Northern Forest Lands Council, 1994). This served as a “wake-up call” for the conservation community (Levitt, 2003), generating concern that a period of rapid development was beginning in the North Woods (Clark and Howell, 2007; Wolf & Klein, 2007). In the early 1990s, Bowater, Inc. sold 2.3 million acres

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

of land previously owned by Northern Paper to 15 different owners (LeVert, Colgan, and Lawton, 2007).

According to Hagan, Irland, and Whitman (2005), about 23.8 million acres were sold in the 26 million acre Northern Forest between 1980 and 2005. It is notable that this included multiple sales of the same acres and that the Northern Forest Region encompasses land in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. More than half of Maine’s North Woods is now owned by Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), timber investment management organizations (TIMOs), and developers, most of which plan to keep the land for eight to ten years (NRCM). Conservation land as a percentage of state area also increased from <5% in 1987 (Figure 1.1) (Cronan et al., 2010) to approximately 19% today (Figure 1.2) (Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, 2012). The transition in land ownership fueled the explosive growth of conservation easements (Clark and Howell, 2007; Levitt, 2003; Liliehom, Irland, and Hagan, 2010).

Paper companies’ divestment of forestlands in Maine was fueled by a number of factors, but especially by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which almost doubled the effective tax rate for corporate timberland (Lilieholm et al., 2010). Tax breaks were later restored to individuals, who profited from REITS and TIMOs. Collapse of timber prices also drove divestment of land (Wolf and Klein, 2007). The US forest products industry began to shift investments to countries where taxes and environmental regulations were more favorable (Hagan et al., 2005).

Demand for recreational properties has exerted development pressure in Maine (LeVert et al., 2007). Examination of lands under LURC jurisdictions in 5-year intervals from 1971 to 2005 indicates that the numbers of new building and development permits issued has increased dramatically. There was a decrease in the number of permits issued between 2001-2005 and 2006-2010 (LUPC, 2012). This may have been a result of the economic recession.

Hagan et al. (2005) suggest that the shift in land ownership away from paper companies in the Northern Forest (including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York) is nearly complete, with industrial forest ownership decreasing from 60% in 1994 to 15.5% in 2005. Meanwhile, ownership by financial investors had increased from 3% in 1994 to 15.5% in 2005 (Hagan et al., 2005). As Cronan et al. (2010) note, however, overall forestry harvest and production levels are high relative to historic levels.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 1.1 Conservation land in Maine in 1987 (Source: Maine Office of GIS, 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 1.2 Conservation land in Maine in 2012 (Source: Maine Office of GIS, 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Objectives

In this chapter, we analyze the current state of large landscape conservation in Maine. We begin by describing our methods, relevant laws and institutions, and stakeholders. We then discuss our findings related to changes in conserved land over time, distribution of conserved lands, management of conserved lands, institutional capacity and funding sources, threats to conserved lands, comparison to other New England states, and large landscape initiatives. Finally, we present the implications of our findings, scenarios, conclusions, and recommendations.

Methods To better understand the state of large landscape conservation in Maine, we examined spatial, quantitative, and qualitative elements of the topic. We consider the three primary types of ownership of conserved lands: federal, state, and private. Municipalities own an extremely small fraction of conserved lands in Maine and are not explicitly discussed here. We also consider fee-purchased lands as opposed to lands under conservation easement.

An extensive literature review guided us throughout the project. Our findings from the existing literature were augmented by interviews conducted over the phone and via email. We interviewed members of various organizations and institutions that are engaged in large landscape conservation across the state (see Appendix 1). We also attended meetings to gather additional information and to make contact with experts.

We gathered quantitative data from state agencies and from Geographic Information System (GIS) offices in Maine and the rest of New England, as well as from pre-existing inventories and reports. General data on the types and proportions of conservation lands in Maine came from the state Division of Parks and Public Lands. We obtained information on Maine’s conservation easements from the Conservation Easement Registry, within the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. Data on large landscape initiatives in Maine were gathered from an inventory produced by the Regional Planning Association and America 2050 (RPA and America 2050, 2012). We sorted the inventory for initiatives operating in Maine, then tallied metrics such as identified objectives.

Laws and Institutions Federal and state laws have set the framework for the acquisition and funding of fee- purchased lands and conservation easements. Laws incentivizing conservation easements have helped drive explosive growth in the number of easements in Maine (McLaughlin, 2007; Richardson, 2011).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Federal Laws Federal laws have been influential in the acquisition and management of federal, state, and private conservation land in Maine. For example, funds allocated from the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act were used to purchase the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Moosehorn NWR is one of the oldest NWRs in the country and is the largest in Maine. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act has also provided a variety of conservation opportunities. Maine’s North Woods have benefitted from this act through the Forest Legacy Program, and the Fund has provided much of the funding needed for game management throughout the state (Wolfe Tone, pers. comm.). Money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund is used to acquire and manage state-owned and operated lands (Vincent, 2006). Similarly, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act supports the State by providing institutional capacity, technical assistance and funding to manage non-game fish and wildlife.

Federal laws also mandate the protection of important habitats. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protects lake, stream, pond, and ocean resources (Cronan et al., 2010). As landscape- wide and ecoregional conservation methods continue to shape the future of conservation, healthy watersheds only becomes more important. The Endangered Species Act remains the most important law related to the preservation of the nation’s threatened and endangered species. In Maine, species such as the golden eagle and the Canadian lynx are used to designate important habitat areas and drive conservation initiatives.

Another role played by federal laws has been to incentivize conservation easements. The Tax Treatment Extension Act permanently authorized income tax deductions for qualified conservation contributions, with deductions contingent on easement perpetuity. Qualified conservation contributions are “of qualified real property interest to a qualified organization, exclusively for conservation purposes” (Table 1.1). Since the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, the federal government has also provided estate tax deductions for conservation easements. The 2006 Pension Protection Act’s Enhanced Easement Incentive elevated tax benefits for qualified conservation easements by raising the cap and extending the carryover period for income tax deductions (LTA, 2012b; LTA, 2012c). The Enhanced Easement Incentive expired in 2011. Treasury §1.170A-14 expands on income tax deduction requirements outlined under IRC Section 26 §170(h). It states that: “If a taxpayer makes a qualified conservation contribution and claims a deduction, the taxpayer must maintain written records of the fair market value of the underlying property before and after the donation and the conservation purpose furthered by the donation.”

Finally, there are a number of federal funding sources for the purchase of conservation easements by federal, state, or private entities. The 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, also known as the Farm Bill, provided funding for a number of conservation programs that utilize easements, such as the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program and the

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Wetlands Reserve Program (LTA, 2012d). The Farm Bill must be renewed every five years, and Congress has yet to approve a 2012 Farm Bill.

Table 1.1 Federal laws related to large landscape conservation Law Year Description Location

The Migratory Creates funding to acquire and maintain national wildlife USC Title 16 Bird Hunting 1934 refuges through the sale of “duck stamp” licenses. Important § 718-718j Stamp Act for the continued funding of wildlife refuges nationwide.

USC Title 16 Chapter 1 Land and Water Procures land to be managed by the NPS, USFWS, USFS, 1964 Subchapter Conservation Fund and BLM. Highly important source of funding to purchase LXIX§ Act and manage conservation lands. 4601-4-4601- 11

Establishes criteria for the inclusion of rivers in a database of USC Title 16 The Wild and 1969 rivers to be monitored, protected, and conserved. Determines §1271-1287 Scenic Rivers Act rules for regulating take of resources and types of recreation

permitted.

Allows for listing and delisting endangered and threatened species, such as Canadian lynx in Maine, and facilitates their Endangered USC Title 16 1973 protection; Protects listed species regardless of the economic Species Act §1531-1544 cost. Administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Authorizes financial and technical assistance to the States for The Fish and 1980 the development, implementation and revision of USC Title 43 Wildlife conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and §1701-1785 Conservation Act wildlife; overseen by USFWS.

Tax Treatment 1980 Makes permanent rules for income tax deductions for USC Title 26 Extension Act qualified conservation contributions §170

Eliminated preferential tax rate for capital gains, Tax Reform Act USC Title 26 1986 dramatically increasing the tax rate for corporate timberland

USC Title 26 Creates estate tax deductions for land placed under Tax Relief Act 1997 §2031(c) & conservation easements §2055(f)

Pension Protection 2006 Increases the cap and carryover period for income tax USC Title 26 Act deductions for conservation contributions §170

The Food, Provides funding for easement programs, such as the Conservation and 2008 Wetlands Reserve Program; must be renewed every five USC Title 16 Energy Act years and Congress has yet to pass Farm Bill 2012

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

State Laws

State institutions have helped manage resources for conservation in Maine. The Land for Maine’s Future (LMF) Board assesses the need for acquiring State lands and creates guidelines for allocating money from the LMF Fund. The Board additionally administers and distributes money via two other sources, the Public Access to Maine Waters Fund and, as of 2011, the Maine Working Waterfront Access Protection Fund. With these three funds at its disposal, the Board acquires lands that are deemed to be significant to the state because they: protect public water supplies or habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species; provide public access for recreational opportunities; or, have other conservation, wilderness, or recreational value. Notably, these funds may not be used to acquire land for which the primary use has been and will be harvestable forests.

The State also identifies designated lands, which are listed as such in the Constitution of Maine. Designated lands provide ensured public access and include certain lands held by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the Division of Parks and Public Lands, Baxter State Park Authority, and lands acquired by the LMF Board. Land can be added to the pre- established designated lands, and these properties are all protected and cannot be reduced or significantly altered unless by two-thirds vote of the Maine Legislature.

The General powers and duties of the Division of Parks and Public Lands statute outlines the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the Division. The Division has control over all state parks and historic sites, public reserved and non-reserved lands, and the Allagash Wilderness Waterway. The Division does not have jurisdiction over Baxter State Park, which is under the management of the Baxter State Park Authority.

The 1985 Maine Conservation Easement Act created much of the framework for the establishment of conservation easements that is still in place in Maine. The law defines conservation easements and easement holders, as well as actions impacting easements that elicit judicial intervention. It enumerates changes in circumstances through which conservation easements continue to be upheld.

The 2007 Act to Amend the Conservation Easement Laws, also known as the Reform Act, increased requirements for and transparency of conservation easement processes in Maine. Conservation easements must now include a statement of conservation purpose, and the holder of the easement must monitor the condition of the property at least once every three years. The Reform Act also established a Conservation Easement Registry. All primary holders of easements are required to register their easements and provide information on easement size, towns and counties affected, execution date, and most recent monitoring outputs, among other data. The contents of the Registry are open to the public but must be

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

requested. Easement holders appear to have been responsive to registration requirements thus far (Pidot, 2011).

Property tax deductions in Maine encourage the establishment of conservation easements: the Tree Growth Tax Law provides deductions for conservation management, while to Current- Use Tax Law, Farm and Open Space Tax Law, and Vulnerable Municipal Farm Support Act allow deductions specifically for conservation easements.

Public access laws indirectly relate to conservation easements because the establishment of easements has been found, in some cases, to lead to decrease in public land access (Daigle, Utley, Chase, Kuentzel, and Brown, 2012). Maine has passed over 100 state trespassing laws, many of which contradict each other (Acheson and Acheson, 2010). The result has been a lack of clarity in public access rights to private land (Acheson and Acheson, 2010). Maine’s history of de facto open land access, in part due to laws that reduce landowner liability, such as the 1979 Landowner Liability Law (Ginger et al., 2012; Acheson, 2006).

An Act to Reform Land Use Planning in the Unorganized Territory replaced the Land Use Regulation Commission with the Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) to preside over planning, zoning, and development in unorganized and deorganized areas. The policies of LUPC may play an important role in determining the trajectory of development in northern Maine. Baldwin, Trombulak, and Baldwin (2009) found that 94.6% of the undeveloped lakeshores in the Northern Appalachian and Acadian ecoregion at risk for habitat conversion fell under LURC jurisdiction. At this juncture, there does not appear to be much literature concerning LUP

Table 1.2: State laws regulating land conservation Law Year Description Location

Establishes public right to cross private land to fish Great Ponds Law 1820 MRS Title 17 §3860 or fowl at ponds greater than 10 acres

Requires the valuation of only available land use Current-Use Tax potential, reducing taxes for conservation easement MRS Title 36 §701-A Law 1969 land

Reduces property taxes for lands used primarily for

Tree Growth Tax commercial tree growth and harvesting if the MRS Title 36 §571-

Law landowner prepares and complies with a forest 584-A 1971 management and harvest plan

Farm & Open Reduces property taxes for farmland, which is to be MRS Title 36 §1101- Space Tax Law 1975 assessed excluding development value 1121

Landowner Removes landowner liability for allowing public 1979 MRS Title 14 §159-A Liability Law access

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Maine Allows for creation of conservation easements in MRS Title 33 §476- Conservation Maine; Identifies noncompliance cases for judicial 1985 479C Easement Act intervention

Farm and Open Reduces property taxes for conserved open space; MRS Title 36 §1101- Space Tax Law Includes a possible 30% reduction for permanently 1993 1121 Amendment protected open space

Sets guidelines for land trusts as charitable trusts; Maine Uniform MRS Title 18-B §101- Does not allow for the “modification or termination Trust Code 2003 1104 of an uneconomic trust” in the case of land trusts

Current Use

Valuation of Reduces property taxes for working waterfront, with MRS Title 36 §1131-

Certain Working higher deductions for permanently protected land 1140-B 2007 Waterfront Land

§477-A requires monitoring data for all conservation Act to Amend the easements and statements of purpose for new MRS Title 33 §476- Conservation 2007 easements; §479-C creates Conservation Easement 479C Easement Laws Registry

An Act to Reform Land Use Planning Replaces the Land Use Regulation Commission with Authority in the MRS Title 12 §681-689 the Land Use Planning Commission Unorganized 2012 Territory

Trends in Federal and State Laws

Emphasis on perpetuity is one trend among laws impacting conservation. Perpetuity is a requirement for income tax deductions with qualified conservation contributions. The Farm and Open Space Tax Law Amendment and the Current Use Valuation of Certain Working Waterfront Lands both provide higher property tax deductions for permanently protected lands.

Another trend in federal and state policy is an increasing emphasis on identifying and clarifying conservation easement purposes (Youngman, 2012). Clarifying easement purposes may lead to greater transparency in easement processes and help environmentalists and governments to evaluate the status of large landscape conservation as it relates to conservation easements.

Overall, Maine is a leader in all states regarding the transparency of conservation easements (Olmsted, 2011). Few states have a central registration system for conservation easements, and the 2007 Act to Reform the Conservation Easement Laws has been praised as a national model (Pidot, 2011). The Reform Act does not, however, specify guidelines for monitoring or mandate secondary holders for easements (Pidot, 2011).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Stakeholders

Since large landscape initiatives transcend political and land ownership boundaries, they typically involve a wide array of stakeholders in discussion and decision making. Considering the continuing development pressures throughout Maine, it is important to realize collaborative goals and work towards valuable conservation outcomes (Pidot). Without increased communication and trust among all invested parties, lack of progress towards land acquisition and conservation will impede conflict resolution (Graff, 2012).

Federal, State, and Local Governments The federal, state, and local levels of government all factor into administering and allocating funding for land acquisition, as well as monitoring conserved lands and passing legislation to establish conservation principles and guidelines. The federal government has the institutional and financial capacity to support large-scale projects and the network to facilitate conservation nationwide. State governments create laws for state-scale conservation management. Local governments provide a degree of accessibility and transparency for citizens to voice their opinions on conservation issues. Tax incentives for conservation are also leveraged by these levels of governance.

Private Industry Due to the decline in the timber and paper industries, towns that have relied heavily on these industries in the past face a need to diversify their economies (Pidot). Large purchases in Maine’s North Woods by real estate investment trusts (REITs) and timber investment management organizations (TIMOs) threaten conservation. Many REITs and TIMOs are interested in land use that is most profitable in the short term. In addition to timber, the landowners seek to pursue recreational and development opportunities, and their management decisions are changing the landscape of the North Woods.

Land Trusts and NGOs Land trusts mobilized to purchase land and acquire easements as paper companies began to sell off large tracts. Land trusts have served as alternative prospective land purchasers to TIMOs and REITs. They have also helped to shape conservation policy in Maine. For example, representatives of the Maine Coast Heritage Trust (MCHT) played an active role in framing and negotiating the terms of the 2007 Reform Act (Pidot, 201). The Trust for Public Land (TPL), the New England Forestry Foundation (NEFF), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Forest Society of Maine (FSM), and the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) are a few other influential land trusts that work in Maine.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

NGOs such as Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) do not operate as land trusts but work to advance initiatives that benefit conservation efforts. They also oppose legislation and development plans that they identify as having unacceptable environmental impacts.

Scientists and Universities

Scientists and universities provide important scientific observation and data that is needed to advance conservation efforts. For example, the University of Maine has been an important player in evaluating conservation throughout the state. Professor Robert Lilieholm at the University of Maine in Orono has mapped areas of high and low conflict between developers and conservation stakeholders in order to promote collaboration and smart conservation. Professor Steven Sader at the University of Maine in Orono is involved in monitoring the Pingree Easement. At Colby College, in Waterville, Maine, Professor Philip Nyhus will be hosting a conference on large landscape conservation in March 2013. There is still a need for additional data and collaboration across institutional and state lines, and scientists and universities can provide specialized support and insight for conservation efforts.

Citizens of Maine Maine citizens have long valued their natural heritage, recreational opportunities, and ability to extract natural resources, and they sometimes see land conservation as a threat, especially when overseen by the federal government. The degree to which public access is permitted on private land in Maine is not found in any other state (LeVert, 2008). Most of this access is for recreational purposes, which often impact the economic vitality of the area (LeVert, 2008). Citizens recreate in a variety of ways across the state, including hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, hiking, and boating, and they worry that they may not be able to continue to do so with state or federal control of lands. Sportsmen and snowmobile groups have been especially wary of government-established conservation lands and potential loss of access. Citizens are also concerned about losing the ability to harvest natural resources. Types of natural resource harvesting in Maine include timber harvesting, mining, and energy extraction and production. However, Mainers ascribe high value to natural landscapes and there is also vehement support for many conservation initiatives.

State of Large Landscape Conservation Private entities take the leading role in conservation in Maine, and the majority of conserved land is under conservation easement (Figure 1.3). Private entities hold 55% of all of Maine’s conserved land, followed by the state government with 36% (Division of Parks and Public Lands 2012). Easements account for 53% of conserved land, while fee-purchased land accounts for 47% (Division of Parks and Public Lands 2012). The total amount of conservation land in Maine is 3,763,654 acres (Division of Parks and Public Lands 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 1.3 Conserved land in Maine by type (Source: Division of Parks and Public Lands 2012).

The majority of conservation easements (81%) are held by land trusts. The majority of fee- purchased conservation land in Maine is owned by the state, followed by land trusts, the Federal government, and municipal governments.

The predominance of conservation easements as opposed to fee-purchased land is indicative of the reactive character of conservation in Maine over the last 25 years. As paper companies have sold off large areas of land, conservation organizations and agencies have responded by acquiring easements, which are less expensive than outright purchase of land.

Case Study: Proposed Maine North Woods National Park The idea to establish a Maine North Woods National Park was put forward in recognition of the loss of large tracts of Maine’s North Woods to development. Massachusetts-based RESTORE: The North Woods originally spearheaded the project, proposing a 3.2 million acre park stretching from east of Baxter State Park northward to the border with Canada and westward to the Moosehead Lake region. The proposal included five major rivers,

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

endangered species habitat, and land in the viewshed of Mount Katahdin (Docherty, 2000). Because Maine residents have long had access to privately owned land in the North Woods for recreation, many are wary of government control of land. Given the massive size of this proposed national park and the involvement by an organization from Massachusetts, the project was met with overwhelming resistance and little progress was made.

Roxanne Quimby, the millionaire who co-founded Burt’s Bees, wants to donate land to the National Park Service for the establishment of a national park (Kevin, 2012). Quimby originally tried to contribute land as part of RESTORE’s proposal but was unsuccessful in donating her land because teaming up with RESTORE meant siding with outsiders from Massachusetts, environmentalists, and the federal government, three groups that northern Mainers are often averse to (Kevin, 2012).

In 2010, Roxanne Quimby proposed donating 74,000 acres abutting the east side of Baxter State Park, a much smaller tract than the RESTORE proposal, and refocused her efforts on determining the economic and ecological implications for the region (Kevin, 2012). She, along with others such as US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, are advocating for a special resource study that would assess the economic, ecological, and social costs and benefits of her hypothetical park (Kevin, 2012; Docherty, 2000). Because the people of northern Maine have such a deep connection to the North Woods and are highly protective of it, proponents need to address the concerns of the citizens to gain support (Docherty, 2000). Quimby’s more recent proposal to donate the land for a park by 2016 has been better received because of the economic assessment and because she has involved the local communities and agreed to establish an endowment of $40 million to cover operating costs.

Park proponents claim that the forest will remain a vital component for the livelihood of Maine residents. Instead of providing solely for the lumber and paper industries, the area will invite ecotourism and economic stimulation in other capacities (Docherty, 2000). The establishment of a North Woods National Park would work towards realizing a mixed landscape of working lands, national and state parks, and recreational lands.

This case study highlights important points regarding the future of Maine’s North Woods, as well as the processes of large landscape efforts. The failure of RESTORE’s initial 3.2 million acre proposal illustrates the resistance of Maine residents to large-scale conservation controlled by federal or external entities. Roxanne Quimby’s more recent plan to turn 74,000 acres into a national park have been received more favorably because the feasibility study will contribute more concrete cost-benefit analysis, local residents have played a part in discussions, and operating costs have been addressed.

Since recreational opportunities, like those offered by trail systems and road infrastructure, and wildlife corridors for long distance migration transcend individual land ownership, it is

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

important to establish a broader vision for large landscape conservation (Vail and Hultkrantz, 2000). At the same time, complications with the proposed North Woods National Park suggest that locals should be involved in the process.

Conserved Land over Time Since the late 1990s the number of new acres of conservation land acquired under easement has driven the growth in conserved land in Maine, while the number of new acres fee- purchased for conservation has remained relatively low. As Figure 1.4 illustrates, the number of new acres under easement spiked in 2001, with the creation of the Pingree Forest Partnership’s easement of 777,352 acres (Maine Department of Conservation, 2012a)—the largest conservation easement in US history (Levitt, 2003). The third and second largest of Maine’s conservation easements to date followed in 2003 and 2005 respectively, each about 300,000 acres (Maine Department of Conservation, 2012a). The peaks in area under easement correspond to the establishment of extremely large conservation easements.

Figure 1.4 Acres of conserved land in Maine over time (Source: Maine Bureau of Parks and Public Lands, 2012; Maine Department of Conservation, 2012a).

The number of new easements, as opposed to the number of new acres under easement, spiked in 2007, the year of the Act to Reform Maine’s Conservation Easement Laws (Figure 1.4). The number of new easements in that year was more than 1.5 times greater than for any other year (Maine Department of Conservation, 2012a). The increase may have been due to a technicality associated with the 2007 Reform Law in terms of what is considered to be a

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

separated easement, but we are unclear of the true reason for this (Theresa Kerchner, pers. comm.).

Figure 1.5 Number of conservation easements in Maine over time (Source: Maine Department of Conservation, 2012a).

Distribution of Conserved Lands The majority of private conservation land (77%) is under easement, and the most sizeable conservation easements in Maine are held by private entities (Figure 1.1). Although the Pingree easement is the largest conservation easement in the United States, it is not continuous (Figure 1.6). The Pingree easement is located northeast and northwest of Baxter State Park, with some sections bordering Canada. The second and third largest easements are the Sunrise Tree Farm and West Branch easements, which are held by the New England Forestry Foundation (NEFF) and the Forest Society of Maine (FSM) respectively. Sunrise Tree Farm easement is located in Downeast Maine, while West Branch is in the northwest region of the state (Figure 1.6).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 1.6 Jurisdiction of conservation lands within holder types (Source: Maine Office of GIS, 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

In contrast to privately conserved land, 73% of state conservation land is fee-purchased. However, the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry is the holder of one easement that is almost 190,000 acres (Katahdin Forest), as well as three others that are over 10,000 acres. The largest block of state conservation land in Maine is located in the center of the state and includes Baxter State Park (Figure 1.6). Types of state conservation land in Maine include public reserved and nonreserved lands, state parks, historic sites, and wildlife management areas.

The vast majority of federal conservation land in Maine (93%) is fee-purchased. Federally owned tracts in Maine include: Acadia National Park, located on Maine’s east coast; a portion of White Mountain National Forest, bordering New Hampshire in western Maine; and ten wildlife refuges found throughout the state. Although they constitute only a small portion of total conserved lands in Maine, the national park, national forest, and national wildlife refuges are important components of Maine’s conserved lands. They protect essential habitat for many species and provide recreational opportunities. Federally-owned conservation lands in Maine are mostly found along Maine’s coast.

Large conservation easements in the North Woods, private and state owned, have garnered a lot of public attention, but most conservation easements in Maine are less than 50 acres (Figure 1.7). Furthermore, 465 easements are less than 10 acres (Maine Department of Conservation, 2012a).

Figure 1.7 Size of Maine conservation easements (Source: Maine Dept. of Conservation, 2012a).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 1.8 Conservation easement density by town: land under conservation easement as percentage of total land within each town (Source: Maine Office of GIS 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The densities of conservation easements by town are greater in northern than in southern Maine, but there are large swaths of townships in the northern part of the state that have no conservation easements at all (Figure 1.8). This is particularly notable in the agricultural area of Aroostook County surrounding Presque Isle and Caribou. The higher densities correspond to large tracts of conserved land in northern Maine. In contrast, easements are found in most towns in southern and coastal Maine, but these towns have lower densities of easements, indicative of smaller easements. Higher population densities and more development in southern Maine prohibit the conservation of large tracts of land.

Management of Conserved Lands Since the management of conservation land in Maine varies depending on the owner and holder, fragmented jurisdiction raises questions regarding actual as opposed to apparent habitat quality and connectivity. Fragmented ownership seems to be more of a concern for private conservation land than for state or federal conservation land because there are a greater number of private conservation entities and management practices are less clear.

Private conservation land is monitored according to the perspectives of the owners and holders. One weakness of the 2007 Reform Law is that it does not provide uniform monitoring guidelines. As a result, information concerning the ecological statuses of properties under easement can be inconsistent or recorded improperly, and the monitoring data in the conservation easement registry has yet to be compiled into an accessible, reader- friendly form (R. Collin Terrien, pers. comm.). Smaller land trusts may have more difficulty complying with monitoring requirements. Overall, monitoring outputs and implications may be unclear. A study by Neugarten et al. (2011) indicates that literature on working-forest monitoring is scarce. The Pingree Forest Partnership’s easement (hereon referred to as the Pingree Easement) is one example of an easement that seems to be more extensively monitored.

As the state body responsible for the management of land in the Unorganized Territory (UT), the Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) oversees planning and zoning functions and develops land use standards throughout Maine (LUPC, 2010). According to LUPC, the Commission encourages appropriate land use in the UT and emphasizes the need for economic vitality. It maintains that conservation efforts and economic vitality are not mutually exclusive and acknowledges the need for environmental protection in addition to low impact development that isn’t ecologically harmful in its proximity to water or other natural resources (LUPC, 2012). LUPC also encourages recreational activities and takes the desire by Maine residents to recreate into account when planning. The Commission asserts that it has recently refocused itself as a forward looking planning agency, rather than a reactionary one (LUPC, 2012). The actual role that LUPC will play moving forward is yet to be determined. Past decisions by the Land Use Regulation Commission included approving

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

the Plum Creek Concept Plan for Moosehead Lake. The benefits and costs of this decision are under debate.

The Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands oversees and manages the vast majority of State conservation land. The Division manages public reserved and nonreserved lands, state parks and historic sites, the Allagash Wilderness Waterway, the Penobscot River Corridor, and select state-owned coastal islands (Maine Department of Conservation, 2012b). The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife holds wildlife management areas, which may be managed for the production of wildlife and for the improvement of wildlife conditions in the state (MRS Title 12 §10001).

The National Park Service (NPS) manages Acadia National Park, the National Forest Service (NFS) manages the White Mountain National Forest, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages the ten wildlife refuges found throughout the state. All three of these federal agencies operating in Maine contribute conservation resources within the state. They provide professional expertise and organizational capacity, leverage power for acquiring funding, and often have more extensive databases, including habitat registries, natural resource inventories, and mapping and spatial analyses (Richardson, 2008). Federal grants have been influential in matching state and private funds for land acquisition. The federal lands in Maine are managed for varying degrees of recreational use, habitat conservation, and natural resource protection.

Case Study: The Pingree Easement Pingree Forest Partnership, a group consisting of New England Forestry Foundation (NEFF) and Pingree family interests, holds the Pingree easement. NEFF quelled possible opposition to the easement by employing a collaborative approach. In 1999, Eliz Swain, a partner at Barton & Gingold, and Peter Stein, a partner at the Lyme Timber Company, convened meetings for NEFF with the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Maine Coast Heritage Trust, the Forest Society of Maine, the Nature Conservancy, and other conservation organizations. Gaining early support from New England Cable News and prominent figures such as Angus King helped bolster public backing. NEFF received over 1,000 contributions from the public to help pay for the easement, as well as financial assistance from philanthropic organizations, such as the Sudbury Foundation (Levitt, 2003). Leadership of NEFF’s Keith Ross was instrumental (Levitt, 2003).

NEFF seems to monitor the Pingree Easement effectively (NEFF, 2011; Chris Pryor, pers. comm.). The monitoring process employs baseline documentation, satellite imagery, aerial photography, and ground visits (NEFF, 2011). Professor Steven Sader of the University of Maine, Orono has played an active role in NEFF’s Pingree Easement monitoring process (Chris Pryor, pers. comm.). Sader et al. (2002) discussed the development of monitoring processes for the Pingree Easement, but due to consideration for landowner privacy, the full

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

monitoring outputs have not been made public (Chris Pryor, pers. comm.). According to Chris Pryor, NEFF’s Conservation Easement Monitoring Coordinator and Forester, the Pingree Easement landowners have complied with development restriction requirements.

It has been argued the Pingree Easement helped launch the era of large conservation easements in Maine (Clark and Howell, 2007; Levitt, 2003; Liliehom et al., 2010). The creation of the largest easement in the US was followed by a number of other sizeable Maine easements. At the time of writing, there are 13 easements in Maine larger than 10,000 acres, and 11 were established post-Pingree Easement (Maine Department of Conservation, 2012a).

The Pingree Easement also illustrates the potential power of small conservation organizations. At the time that work to acquire the easement began, NEFF had six staff members (Levitt, 2003). In order to gather enough human capacity to achieve the establishment of the easement while minimizing staffing costs, Ross created a network of consultants to assist him (Levitt, 2003). Today, NEFF has nine staff members (Chris Pryor, pers. comm.).

Institutional Capacity and Funding Sources The exact number and size distribution of land trusts in Maine is somewhat unclear. According to Theresa Kerchner, Executive Director of the Kennebec Land Trust, there are 93 land trusts in Maine, but only 48 of them have more than one full-time equivalent staff member. Twenty-one are fully volunteer organizations, while 24 others have less than one full-time equivalent staff member (Theresa Kerchner, pers. comm.). Data from a list of land trusts in Maine compiled by the Maine Land Trust Network suggests that there are 98 land trusts in Maine, with 33 that have zero staff members and 20 that have one staff member (Maine Land Trust Network, 2012). It is unclear as to which data is the most up-to-date, and there may be differences in terms of who is or is not counted as a staff member. The general trend that there are a lot of land trusts in Maine with few staff members is consistent, however. The Maine Coast Heritage Trust (MCHT) provides support for the diverse land trusts across the state, using newsletters, conferences, and workshops to help keep other land trusts informed of regulatory changes (Warren Whitney, pers. comm.; Theresa Kerchner, pers. comm.).

Maine’s Bureau of Parks and Lands acquired the vast majority of State conservation land in Maine via two critical programs. The longer standing of the two, the Land for Maine’s Future (LMF) program, was created in 1987 based on recommendations of Maine Governor Joseph Brennan’s Special Commission on Outdoor Recreation. The Commission suggested the creation of LMF as a way to protect the natural heritage and traditions of Maine, which were jeopardized by the sudden changes in land ownership (Hagan et al., 2005; University of Southern Maine and University of Maine, 2004). As of 2011, the program has succeeded in

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

conserving 250,000 acres of working forest, 1,150 miles of shoreline, 15,000 acres of deer wintering yards, and 29 working farms (The Land for Maine’s Future Program, 2011).

LMF is comprised of an 11-member board and relies on voter-approved bond measures for funding. The most recent measure passed in November 2012 and will provide $5 million. To date, $132 million dollars in LMF funds have been approved. Some conservationists view LMF as the most effective means for obtaining and conserving lands in Maine (The Trust for Public Land, 2012). Over the past 25 years, the program has become well-respected for avoiding political involvement and adapting to different issues, from protecting fishermen’s access to the water to ensuring the continued operation of family farms (University of Southern Maine & University of Maine, 2004). The LMF program frequently partners with state agencies and nonprofit groups that contribute matching funds in land acquisition projects (Clark and Howell, 2007). The program also relies on local initiatives and stakeholders to identify projects, and it only works with willing sellers (University of Southern Maine & University of Maine, 2004).

Interviews conducted for the Brookings Institution’s report Charting Maine’s Future: Making Headway (2012) indicate that Mainers appreciate LMF as an effective means to “improve, protect, and promote quality of place.” The program is an example of a state-led effort that has gained popular support through stakeholder collaboration.

The Maine State Government also acquires land through funds administered by the US Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program (FLP). This program began in 1990, but did not seek competitive funding proposals in Maine until 2000. Since then, the FLP has conserved 682,500 acres of forest land in the state. The FLP’s aim is to prevent conversion to non-forest uses, and it requires that the state hold the rights, title, or interest to lands protected through FLP. The program can provide up to 75 percent of the funds required to purchase lands or easements from willing sellers (Maine Department of Conservation, 2012b). Projects to be funded by the FLP must be within the Maine Forest Legacy Area, which covers the majority of the state, except for coastal central and southern regions and select developed areas in Aroostook County (Maine Department of Conservation, 2010a).

The FLP has granted funding to Maine for projects each year since 2000, and 30% of all land across the US conserved by FLP is in Maine (Maine Department of Conservation, 2012b). Maine has received a total of $74 million in FLP awards, and Maine projects that have been funded by the program have reached total funding value of $153 million. This includes the $74 million from FLP plus an additional $79 million, which consists of $19 million in LMF funds, as well as an additional $60 million from private donors and other grants. LMF funds have helped secure project support from the FLP.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Threats to Conservation Lands in Maine

Development pressures on conservation land in Maine have continued to evolve and, despite the economic recession, currently loom large in today’s conservation discussions. In particular, two projects that have attracted attention are Plum Creek’s planned development at Moosehead Lake and the proposed East-West Highway.

Case Study: Plum Creek Development at Moosehead Lake Although Maine’s conservation community has managed to increase the percentage of land conserved in the state to 19%, Seattle-based Plum Creek Timber Co.’s Concept Plan for Moosehead Lake has raised questions about the future of conservation in Maine. Plum Creek, the largest publicly-held Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), first submitted a massive Moosehead Lake development proposal in 2005 (Plum Creek, 2012). Under pressure from environmental organizations, Plum Creek revised its Concept Plan, in 2006 and in 2007 (NRCM, 2012).

In 2009, after 300 hours of public hearings, the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) created then passed a revised Concept Plan (Miller, 2012). The plan rezones about 16,000 acres for development, allowing construction of 975 houses and 2 resorts (Miller, 2012). The plan also places 393,000 acres under perpetual conservation easement (Dept. of Conservation, 2011).

The Concept Plan’s conservation deal is supported by several of Maine’s conservation organizations. The 363,000-acre Moosehead Lake Regional Conservation Easement, which was brokered by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and will be held by the Forest Society of Maine (FSM), connects the St. John Valley to Moosehead Lake to Mount Katahdin, an area of 2 million acres (TNC, 2012). It also contains 30 sites that have been identified as habitat for rare and endangered species (Turkel, 2012). The easement will, “ensure sustainable forestry is practiced, prohibit all residential development, and forever guarantee the right for the public to access the lands for traditional recreational purposes” (Plum Creek, 2009). In addition to the Moosehead Lake Regional Conservation Easement, TNC bought 15,000 acres for conservation, and the Appalachian Mountain Club bought 29,500 acres that it will place under perpetual conservation easement (Turkel, 2009).

The approval by LURC was in contention for almost three years. RESTORE, the Forest Ecology Network, and the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) opposed the Concept Plan and appealed LURC’s decision, while Plum Creek, TNC, FSM, Piscataquis County Economic Development Council, and the Town of Greenville supported the Concept Plan and opposed the appeal. In April 2011, the Maine State Superior Court overturned LURC’s decision on the basis that it violated procedural rules. In March 2012, the Maine

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Supreme Court reversed the ruling and upheld the approval of the Moosehead Lake Concept Plan. Plum Creek’s next step toward development will be the permitting process.

The Plum Creek Concept Plan has garnered praise for its balance between environmental and economic values. Earnest “Bart” Harvey III, former chair of the Land Use Regulation Commission, stated in a commentary for the Maine Policy Review:

The Moosehead region now has a plan that recognizes that neither conservation nor development alone can sustain a region, so offers a symbiotic mix of expansive conservation and guided, permanently bounded development that protects the region’s valuable natural resources and sets the stage for much-needed economic growth.

Similarly, Mike Tetreault, executive director of TNC in Maine, said, “from businesses that will continue to harvest wood to visitors that paddle the Moose River, the conservation of the Moosehead Lake region will help protect Maine’s way of life” (TNC, 2012). Celebration of the environmental benefits of the Moosehead Lake deal has not been limited to involved parties: the Brookings Institution’s Charting Maine’s Future: Making Headway (2012) characterizes the Concept Plan’s conservation easements as a conservation success.

The case study of Plum Creek’s Concept Plan for Moosehead Lake provokes questions concerning the methods that should be used to procure conservation land in the future. Crafting deals with REITs, TIMOs, and other development entities may help secure the acquisition of large tracts of conservation land in Maine. On the other hand, the incremental development that would result from such agreements could undermine the connectivity and ecological integrity of the North Woods. Jym St. Pierre of RESTORE said that the Maine Supreme Court’s ruling sets a “very troubling precedent” for LURC, stating, “[W]e will see whether this decision today is the starting gun for the end of the Moosehead region” (Miller, 2012).

Case Study: The East-West Highway Another looming threat for large landscape conservation in Maine is the East-West Transportation, Communications, and Utilities Corridor (or East-West Highway) proposed by Peter Vigue, CEO of the Cianbro Corporation. The project would be a private toll highway running 220 miles across the state (Seelye, 2012). The exact details of the route have not been divulged, but it is expected to run between Calais, on the New Brunswick border, and Coburn Gore, on the border of Quebec.

Although the idea of an East-West Highway has been circulating for decades, it may be more likely to come to fruition now because it would be privately financed. A law passed by the Republican legislature called for a $300,000 feasibility study of the project, but the study has been suspended by Governor Paul LePage (Tapley, 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Proponents of the East-West Highway suggest that the project would bring economic benefits with few negative impacts on the environment or on private property rights. The highway would certainly make transportation of goods between Quebec and the United States easier as there is currently no major roadway that cuts east to west across the state. Supporters argue that it would also increase business opportunities within the state of Maine. Vigue says that the East-West Highway can be constructed without impeding on public conservation land or necessitating eminent domain takings (Cousins, 2012).

The actual economic benefits to Maine are uncertain, however, and there are fears that the highway could simply open the state to exploitation by outside interests (Tapley, 2012). It would also threaten wildlife habitat by cutting across the region in western Maine that is particularly important for maintaining connectivity between the forests in the northern part of the state and those in northern New Hampshire. Opponents argue that the project would disturb the region’s rural character (Seelye, 2012) and undermine tourism (Stop the Corridor, 2012). It could also pass through Penobscot Indian Nation lands (Tapley, 2012). Residents in rural central Maine have been outspoken in their resistance to the proposal (Barber, 2012; Tapley, 2012).

Comparison to Other New England States

Maine is a large state with a low population density and leads the other New England states in total acres of conservation land by a large margin (Figure 1.9). In terms of conservation land as a percentage of total land, however, Maine places fifth, behind New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont (Figure 1.10).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 1.9 Acres of conservation land for each New England state (Source: Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands, 2012; New Hampshire Granit, 2012; the Vermont Conserved Lands Database, 2012; Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2012; the Connecticut Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 2012; and the Rhode Island Geographic Information System and the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 1.10 Conserved land as a percentage of total land for each New England state (Source: Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands, 2012; New Hampshire Granit, 2012; the Vermont Conserved Lands Database, 2012; Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2012; the Connecticut Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 2012; and the Rhode Island Geographic Information System and the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, 2012).

Maine leads the rest of New England in the percentage of its conserved land that is under conservation easement, with 56% of conserved land under conservation easement (Figure 1.11). The next closest state is Rhode Island at 38%.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 1.11 Percentage of conserved land under conservation easement for each New England state (Source: Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands, 2012; New Hampshire Granit, 2012; the Vermont Conserved Lands Database, 2012; Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2012; the Connecticut Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 2012; and the Rhode Island Geographic Information System and the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, 2012).

Figure 1.12 shows the differences in scale, abundance, distribution, and ownership of conserved land across New England, displaying the unique status of large landscape conservation in Maine as compared to the rest of New England. Unlike other New England states, Maine is characterized by many large tracts of privately conserved land, some large tracts of state conserved land, and relatively little area of federally conserved land. New Hampshire and Vermont are also conservation standouts, having large tracts of federally conserved land with the White and Green Mountain National Forests, respectively. The more heavily populated southern New England states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island lack sizeable conserved tracts. This map shows the potential for large landscape conservation in Maine because there are large gaps between conserved lands in the sparsely populated northern part of the state.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 1.12 Conservation land throughout New England (Source: Maine Office of GIS, 2012; New Hampshire Granit (UNH), 2012; Vermont Center for Geographic Information, 2012; MassGIS, 2012; Rhode Island Geographic Information System, 2012; Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

It is important to note that comparing statistics on conserved land across New England states must be done cautiously because the states vary in terms of what they classify as conservation land. Furthermore, limited funding may impede up-to-date and precise measurements. Our data and mapping provide a general sense of the conservation trends across New England.

Large Landscape Conservation Initiatives The Regional Plan Association and America 2050 (2012) inventoried large landscape initiatives in the Northeast Megaregion, including the states from Maine to Virginia, with the western boundary marked by New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. This study identified 165 landscape initiatives, of which 24 operate in Maine. Out of the 24 initiatives, the most common objectives are to improve habitat and biodiversity, water quality and quantity, and open space and recreation (Figure 1.13). The most commonly used tools include: educational outreach, interpretation, and visitor services; research, science, and monitoring; and planning (Figure 1.14) (RPA and America 2050, 2012). The most common threat faced by the initiatives is urban growth (Figure 1.15).

Figure 1.13 Objectives of large landscape conservation initiatives that operate in Maine (Source: the Regional Plan Association and America 2050, 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 1.14 Tools of large landscape conservation initiatives that operate in Maine (Source: the Regional Plan Association and America 2050, 2012).

Figure 1.15 Threats to large landscape conservation initiatives that operate in Maine (Source: the Regional Plan Association and America 2050, 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Non-profits are the lead institutions for the vast majority of the large landscape initiatives (19 out of 24) operating in Maine, as opposed to state governments, federal agencies, or universities (RPA and America 2050, 2012). It is notable, however, that 14 of the initiatives have received federal funding, 12 are partnered with the U.S. Department of the Interior, and 14 have partnerships with state government(s) (RPA and America 2050, 2012).

Overall, the large landscape conservation organizations in Maine identified by RPA and America 2050 are new and small. All except one were established in 1987 or later, with almost half of the total 24 established in 2001 or later. Eight have zero staff, and only one has more than eight staff. The Appalachian Trail Conservancy has about 45 staff members, far more than any other large landscape initiative identified as operating in Maine, and it is also by far the oldest identified in the state, having been established in 1925 (RPA and America 2050, 2012). The young ages and small sizes of large landscape organizations in Maine is in keeping with the norm throughout the Northeast Megaregion (RPA and America 2050, 2012).

Implications The case studies we described highlight the importance of including local stakeholders in order for conservation projects in Maine to be successful, especially when the projects are led by the government or outside entities. Efforts by RESTORE to create a North Woods National Park were undermined by lack of local involvement, and this is part of what prevented the project from moving forward. On the other hand, Land for Maine’s Future (LMF) is a prime example of how the state can collaborate with local and private conservation groups. For example, LMF provided supporting funds to the Port Clyde Fishermen’s Co-op to allow the group to purchase a property threatened by private interests. With assistance from LMF, the Co-op now owns the land that provides access to the waterfront and resources for these fishermen (Land for Maine’s Future Coalition, 2012). By incorporating local and private conservation organizations, LMF is able to react quickly to conservation opportunities across the state, while organizations such as the Port Clyde Fishermen’s Co-op are able to receive funding to aid in placing their priority lands under conservation.

Conserved Land over Time The benefits of the rapid increase in the number of conservation easements are ambiguous. Small easements may be all that can be obtained in more densely populated parts of southern and coastal Maine, and analysis by Cronan et al. (2010) suggests that there is high species richness in southern Maine. Large easements have allowed conservation organizations and the state government to protect land pushed rapidly into the market by paper companies,

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

preventing the development of a number of expansive properties in northern Maine (Clark & Howell, 2007).

Although the majority of land under conservation easement in Maine is held by land trusts, government agencies have begun to shift toward the use of easements. The state government has transitioned from acquiring conservation lands by outright fee purchase to instead focusing resources on acquiring conservation easements across the state. This has contributed to the rapid increase in the number of conserved lands and has allowed the state to conserve more land for less money (Kathy Eickenberg, pers. comm.). Since 1995, land managed by the Division of Parks and Public Lands under simple fee ownership has increased by about 124,000 acres. In that same time, however, land managed by the Division under conservation easement has increased by 325,188 acres, with 291,000 of those acres acquired between 2003 and 2009 (Maine Department of Conservation, 2012b).

Recent land acquisition adjacent to Acadia National Park (ANP) provides an example of the use of conservation easements in Maine by the federal government. ANP was established in 1916 and today includes 36,171 acres of fee-owned land, as well as almost 10,000 acres of surrounding easements (Emily Pagan, pers. comm.). Most of the land acquisition for ANP occurred in the early 1900s, with over 36% of the current acreage acquired during the 1930s (Pagan, 2012). There has been very little land added to ANP over the last decade. Instead, focus has been on establishing conservation easements around the park. Easements overseen by the National Park Service can be found outside park boundaries.

Distribution of Conserved Lands Previous GIS analysis by Cronan et al. (2010) suggests that connectivity and scope of conserved lands in Maine may not adequately protect the state’s species. The study finds that parcels less than 100 acres account for 72% of conserved lands and that 75% of conserved lands are in Piscataquis, Somerset, Washington, or Aroostook counties. Of 1,700 locations for threatened or endangered species, 60% are mapped outside of protected lands. Finally, the study indicates that land cover type for conserved areas in Maine is generally proportional to the overall land cover across the state with a couple of exceptions (Cronan et al., 2010). Our maps suggest that there is opportunity to enhance connectivity of conserved land in the western portion of the state.

Despite the predominance of privately conserved lands, state and federal lands have served as points around which conserved tracts are focused, and they could continue to be focal areas in the future. In 1933, the state government purchased 5,760 acres from Great Northern Paper to create Baxter State Park (Foster, 2009). Since the acquisition of this land, which Governor Percival Baxter advocated setting aside as “forever wild,” state lands have been a basis for conservation in Maine (Foster, 2009).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

ANP is an example of federal land that serves as a conservation focal point and holds value to both the state and nation. ANP is significant because it is the largest and most visited federally-owned land in Maine. ANP encompasses a variety of habitat types, from forests to freshwater and saltwater habitats. It is located within the broad transition zone of eastern deciduous and northern coniferous forests (Acadia, 2012). ANP offers habitat preservation, ecosystem restoration and monitoring, and an array of recreational opportunities (Acadia, 2012).

A portion of White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) lies in western Maine. On its own, WMNF does not play a significant role in conservation management in Maine, but WMNF is significant for regional landscape conservation planning.

Maine’s ten national wildlife refuges (NWRs) are the final component of the state’s federally-held conservation tracts. Five of the NWRs are found along the coast and are part of a wildlife refuge complex known as Maine Coastal Islands NWRs. This group of refuges conserves an array of habitat types including coastal islands, forested headlands, estuaries, and freshwater wetlands, which provide important ecosystems and stopping points for migratory birds (Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuges, 2011).

Private conservation land is extremely important to maintaining habitat integrity in Maine, but state and federal lands are also of notable conservation value, both in terms of location and habitat variation. Complications in managing private conservation properties also highlight the importance of government lands.

Management of Conserved Lands The effectiveness of conservation easements in enhancing habitat connectivity and improving biodiversity has not been thoroughly evaluated. In general, conservation easements are monitored for development, not biological metrics (Monica Erhart, pers. comm.). To some extent, this is logical because easement terms are often negotiated around development restrictions. Furthermore, monitoring biological indicators is more complicated, and it would be difficult to hold landowners accountable for metrics that are influenced by environmental variability. Hagan et al. (2005) suggest, however, that conservation easement goals defined in relation to development may not produce the desired ecological outcomes. The authors find that, in the Northern Forest Region of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York:

Forestland under a no-development easement did not have stronger biodiversity practices than forestland with no easement at all. Forestland with no-development easements and some stipulations for biodiversity protection did have stronger biodiversity practices than forestland with no easement.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The types of allowed development that disqualify an agreement from counting as a conservation easement are not explicitly stipulated in federal or state legislation. As a result, some easements permit a wide range of development. In examining conservation easements held by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in various states, Rissman et al. (2007) found that residential or commercial use, new structures, and/or subdivision of property was permitted on 85% of sampled lands. Although Maine was not among the states surveyed in this study, Maine has no mechanisms in place that would restrict the allowance of these kinds of development within the easement terms. Furthermore, Noone et al. (2012) found that in Maine, lands under working forest conservation easements had similar disturbance rates to those that were not.

Emphasis on easement perpetuity evident in state and federal law is somewhat ironic in the context of these concerns. The actual perpetuity of ostensibly perpetual easements is questionable, and perpetuity may not even be a desirable goal. If easements were too readily terminated, this would undermine their efficacy as conservation tools. On the other hand, conservation easements with few ecological benefits may not be worth preserving forever at the expense of tax revenues and other resources. Perpetuity can also belie adaptive land management (Youngman, 2012). Richardson (2011) argues that conservation easements are not coordinated with town planning and zoning considerations. This may be problematic as environmental and economic conditions shift.

This analysis raises potential problems related to conservation easements, but it is important to reiterate that easements have played an extremely important role as conservation tools in response to the changing land ownership of Maine’s North Woods. It is also possible that conservation easements help to preserve habitat in biologically diverse areas of southern Maine, but without monitoring data, this possibility cannot be evaluated.

Private, state, and federal conservation lands in Maine have been managed for a variety of purposes and activities. One of Maine’s most notable National Wildlife Refuges, the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, provides an example of multi-use management. Moosehorn is comprised of various types of animal habitat and includes sustainable timber harvesting area and federally designated wilderness areas (Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, 2011). The land incorporates the type of multi-use land management that many Mainers seek to establish throughout the state. Though established in 1937, Moosehorn NWR could serve as an example for conservation in Maine moving forward.

Institutional Capacity and Funding Sources That so many of Maine’s land trusts are small may have negative implications for land monitoring and management. The work of the New England Forestry Foundation (NEFF) in

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

establishing the Pingree Easement suggests that organizations with few personnel can successfully tackle extremely large conservation projects, as well as develop and execute complex monitoring procedures. NEFF may be an exception rather than the rule, however. A 2005 survey by the Land Trust Alliance indicated that more than 80% of land trusts believe it is likely that some or all of their holdings will not be protected in 100 years (Pidot, 2011). Land trusts identified their inability to uphold or steward their conservation easements as the primary risk to those easements (Pidot, 2011). The 2007 Act to Amend the Conservation Easement Laws did not mandate that easements have a default holder to take over management if the primary holder is dissolved (Pidot, 2011).

The federally administered Forest Legacy Program contributes greatly to Maine’s power for purchasing conservation land. The State has used this program in collaboration with other conservation stakeholders to provide consistent funds for statewide projects. The program highlights the important role that Maine plays in the scheme of conservation lands across the US. Maine is at a key location for large landscape conservation, with large tracts of intact forest habitat linking the coast to inland regions stretching from Canada to the rest of New England.

Threats Case studies such as the proposed Plum Creek development at Moosehead Lake highlight the choices and tradeoffs that Maine’s conservation community will have to make in the coming years. Whether or not conservation organizations should support plans by development entities in order to secure large areas of land for perpetual conservation is ambiguous. These are probably decisions that will have to be made on a case-by-case basis with consideration of the projected ecological implications within a landscape-scale context. The danger is that relatively small concessions may over time add up to a large cumulative impact on the health and connectivity of Maine’s ecosystems. Roads and other barriers to species migration will have to be considered. The ecological dynamics of mixed land use will have to be examined.

The East-West Highway case study illustrates the possibility for the development of projects that span large swaths of Maine. It also highlights the resistance that these kinds of projects can generate when they are perceived as encroaching on private property. The actual likelihood of the East-West Highway becoming a reality is uncertain.

Large Landscape Conservation Initiatives Analysis of the Regional Plan Association and America 2050 (2012) inventory suggests that large landscape conservation initiatives operating in Maine commonly pursue both ecological and social goals, from biodiversity to recreation. The initiatives appear to focus on educational outreach and monitoring as conservation tools and can employ these methods to

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

enhance the environmental management and collaborative processes carried out by land trusts and other conservation organizations that may have limited resources.

Although there have been a number of success stories, the newness and small size of the identified large landscape conservation initiatives suggests that additional time may be needed to judge their efficacy. The status of federal funding and support moving forward may significantly influence the initiatives’ trajectories. More in-depth evaluation of the environmental and social outcomes will be needed. One concern is the extent to which the initiatives overlap with each other and are able to coordinate their strategies, since greater coordination would probably increase the efficiency of efforts and resource expenditures.

Case Study: Staying Connected The Staying Connected Initiative seeks to restore connectivity in forest habitat from New York to Maine. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) heads the initiative’s work in Maine, which focuses on the western part of the state and the north part, near Quebec and New Brunswick. Daniel Coker, GIS Analyst and Conservation Information Coordinator for TNC, is conducting GIS analysis of roads in western Maine to determine variables that most impact species movement, He is also working with the Maine Department of Transportation to minimize barriers to animal movement. Efforts in northern Maine have involved sitting down with stakeholders.

Staying Connected is also pioneering some interesting monitoring work in Vermont that deserves mention. The initiative seeks to implement supplementary monitoring for conservation lands that examines biological metrics, not just the absence or presence of development. Staying Connected is still in the process of fully developing these metrics. According to Monica Erhardt, a coordinator for the Staying Connected Initiative, the idea is for staff to carry out the additional monitoring themselves; partner land trusts would not be expected to shoulder an extra burden.

Case Study: The Penobscot River Restoration Project The Penobscot River Restoration Trust is a striking example of a new large landscape organization that has been incredibly successful. Having formed in 2004, the organization has worked with the Penobscot Indian Nation, PPL Corporation (a hydropower company), community memebers, and the federal, state, and local governments to achieve the removal of the Great Works dam, with the Veazie Dam slated for removal. The project also includes the construction of a Milford fish lift and Howland bypass. This work will open up 1,000 miles of river habitat for Atlantic salmon, sturgeon, river herring, and eight other sea-run fish species. The Penobscot River Restoration Project is the largest river restoration project in the history of the US (Penobscot River Restoration Trust, 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The Penobscot River Restoration Project may be an effort that achieves environmental, social, and economic goals. Increasing fish populations would have positive implications for the surrounding ecosystem. The expected return of the fish would be of important cultural value to the Penobscot Indian Nation. It would also provide new opportunities for recreation, such as wildlife viewing. Furthermore, there is expected to be no net loss of energy because PPL Corporation is investing the money from the sales of the dams in improving the efficiency of the remaining dams (Penobscot River Restoration Trust, 2012).

Efforts to evaluate the actual ecological outcomes of the Penobscot River Restoration Project are being pursued in collaboration with researchers at the University of Maine and the US Geological Survey. The researchers are monitoring the shape and geological characteristics of the river channel (Penobscot River Restoration Trust, 2012). The Penobscot River Restoration Project is an example of an initiative that has been locally driven but supported by the federal government. In Maine, America’s Great Outdoors (AGO) supports the Penobscot River Restoration Project and Keeping Maine’s Forests. AGO is a federal program launched by the Obama administration that provides funding and technical assistance for 100 of the nation’s most promising large landscape conservation efforts--2 in each state (US DOI, 2011). The selection process was guided by 51 public listening sessions, with more than 10,000 participants and more than 105,000 submitted comments (US DOI, 2011).

Case Study: Woodlands and Wildlands In 2010, Harvard Forest scientists launched Wildlands and Woodlands (W&W), an initiative that seeks to retain forest cover for 70% of New England, amounting to 30 million acres, over the next 50 years. Out of that total, 90% would be “Woodlands,” meaning that it would be sustainably managed for ecological, economic, and recreational uses, and 10% would be “Wildlands,” meaning that it would be “shaped only by the natural environment” (W&W, 2012a). W&W was inspired by recognition that forest cover is declining in every New England state after increasing during the 1900s (W&W, 2012b). The initiative’s goals require proactive land use planning but accommodate as much as doubling existing development (W&W, 2012a).

Wildlands and Woodlands consists of a network of hundreds of partner organizations working to protect New England’s forests. In the face of development pressures, the initiative suggests increasing land use efficiency through policies that promote “higher residential dwelling densities, as well as cluster, transit-oriented, mixed-use, and adaptive re-use development” (Foster et al., 2010). Highstead, which collaborates with Harvard Forest to help lead W&W, began convening meetings for regional conservation partnerships (RCPs) in 2008. The RCP meetings have since grown into a more formalized RCP Network that facilitates peer exchange and technical training through yearly meetings, in-depth workshops, a webinar series, a Linked-in group, and additional resources (W&W, 2012b).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The 2012 Wildlands and Woodlands update highlights the collaboration between consultant Keith Ross of LandVest, consultant Alex Van Alen of True North, the New England Forestry Foundation (NEFF), and almost 100 land trusts and watershed associations to achieve conservation aggregation in coastal Maine (W&W, 2012a). It also draws attention to the work of Maine Coast Heritage Trust (MCHT), Friends of Acadia, and Lyme Timber Company LP to conserve a 3,200-acre area of high ecological significance adjacent to Acadia National Park.

Scenarios The following scenarios outline three alternatives for the future of large landscape conservation in Maine. In the first scenario, conservation lands are expanded and connected. In the second, large landscape conservation trends continue on the current trajectory. The final scenario describes unchecked development with minimal effort for large landscape conservation.

Ecoregional Management Planning In an ecoregional planning scenario, areas large enough to protect source populations of plant and animal species would be protected so that the species could disperse through corridors and into satellite habitats. Diverse stakeholders would collaborate to achieve conservation goals, and an acceptable agreement for the North Woods National Park would be reached. Ecoregional planning would encourage the existence of viable species populations as well as preserve large tracts of land for recreation, sustainable natural resource extraction, and carbon sequestration.

Ecoregional planning would involve planning for a mixed-use landscape. Robert Lilieholm (2007) has been involved in scenario planning in Maine and throughout New England and asserts that a mixed-use landscape conservation plan would work well for the region. It would include core protected areas in places like Baxter State Park, with buffers of timberland and easements and connective wildlife corridors. Land use planners would take special care to protect wetlands, ponds, lakes, and waterways because these are often under high development threat and provide a wide range of ecosystem services. Lastly, Lilieholm (2007) suggests that communities such as Bangor, Greenville, Millinocket, and Jackman should continue to build economic infrastructure to serve as gateways to recreational and outdoor educational opportunities.

Large landscape conservation initiatives would receive consistent funding and technical support from federal, state, and municipal governments, as well as from philanthropists. They would continue to enhance their collaborative relationships with each other and with stakeholders. Additional research would facilitate the creation of a new database, or the

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

expansion of the Regional Plan Association and America 2050 database, to help enhance coordination and evaluate the outcomes of these initiatives in terms of ecological, social, and economic metrics.

Business-as-usual Under the business-as-usual scenario, opportunistic land acquisition would be the primary mode of conservation in Maine. The percentage of land conserved in Maine would continue to increase, but large development projects would also be planned and approved. The federal government would maintain funding for state conservation efforts through the Forest Legacy Program (FLP), among other measures, and for regional efforts through initiatives like America’s Great Outdoors. The state government would continue to fund conservation through Land for Maine’s Future (LMF) because Mainers would continue to support bond measures for LMF. Maine would be home to many land trusts, most of which would have few staff. Conservation easements would be the primary tool for acquisition of conservation land in Maine.

Although large landscape initiatives would continue to achieve impressive conservation results in Maine, collaboration between conservation entities to identify the most important lands for conservation would remain in its early stages. Maine’s lands and natural resources would support a variety of activities and uses, but the framework for coordinating and optimizing various ecological, social, and economic goals would remain underdeveloped.

Intensive Land Development In the intensive land development scenario, development would expand dramatically in Maine, particularly in the North Woods. State and federal funding sources, such as LMF and FLP, would be reduced, and the resources for conservation entities to purchase land and acquire easements would be severely restricted. Land use planning in Maine’s Unorganized Territory would be further deregulated and decentralized, as stipulated in earlier versions of bills to Reform Land Use Planning Authority in the Unorganized Territory. Municipalities in the Unorganized Territory would have greater agency in land use planning and many would succumb to development pressures. Projects like the development planned by Plum Creek at Moosehead Lake would become common. Maine’s ecosystems would suffer from increasing fragmentation, and the state’s iconic scenery would be degraded, undermining the tourism industry.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Conclusions Based on our analysis, we conclude the following: • Within New England, land conservation in Maine is uniquely important due to high species diversity, abundant natural resources and large tracts of undeveloped land. • Private conservation land and growth in conservation easements have contributed substantially to conservation land throughout the state. In Maine, 56% of conservation land is privately held and 53% is under conservation easement. Maine’s Act to Amend the Conservation Easement Laws of 2007 was transformative in that it created a conservation easement registry within the state that promotes data collection on conservation easements. • The history of public access to privately owned land in Maine has engendered resistance to State and Federal conservation efforts. • State and Federal lands in Maine, such as Baxter State Park and Acadia National Park, are iconic in their environmental and recreational value. • Maine has made progress in conserving land and collaborative conservation projects have achieved impressive results. There are opportunities for continuing to expand and connect conserved lands, and development remains a pressing threat.

Recommendations We recommend that federal, state, and private conservation entities collaborate with local communities to achieve large landscape conservation goals.

We recommend supporting and enhancing existing forums for discussing the future of Maine’s landscape in order to enhance dialogue among private, state, and federal conservation entities. There are many more conservation organizations and initiatives in Maine and New England that we did not cover in this report and these groups should be involved in these forums.

We recommend the expansion of the current conservation easement registry to include all conserved land held in all ownership types and increase public accessibility. The aim of this increased access to data is to encourage more awareness of the conserved land in Maine and to benefit landscape scale planning initiatives.

We encourage the Governor and congressional delegation of Maine to support the two-part approval process of the proposed National Park in Maine. If the special resource study concludes that Maine will benefit from the addition of a National Park, the Governor and congressional delegation should support the approval of the park in Congress. There are many stakeholders involved in approving this proposed park and serious consideration should be given to the potential for multiple uses of the land in the proposed park.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Works Cited Aaron, P. (2011). Evaluating the Economic Benefits of Land Conservation in Maine: Land for Maine's Future. Acheson, J. M. (2006). Public Access to Privately Owned Land in Maine. Maine Policy Review, 15(1), 18-30. Acheson, J. M., & Acheson, J. (2009). Maine land: private property and hunting commons. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 552-570. Acheson, J. M., & McCloskey, J. (2010). Causes of Deforestation in Central Maine, USA. Human Ecology, 36(6), 331-348. American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America, . . . World Wildlife Fund. (2010). Program Proposal from Conservation and Environmental Organizations: A Landscape-scale Conservation Initiative for the U.S. Baldwin, R. F., Trombulak, S. C., & Baldwin, E. D. (2007). Assessing risk of large-scale habitat conversion in lightly settled landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(4), 219-225. Baldwin, R. F., Trombulak, S. C., Beazley, K., Reining, C., Woolmer, W., Nordgran, J. R., & Anderson, M. (2007). The Importance of Maine for Ecoregional Conservation Planning. Maine Policy Review. Barber, A. (2012, June 5). Opponents continue to rail against proposed east-west highway in Piscataquis County, Bangor Daily News. Bouvier, R. (2010). The Natural Environment as Field-Level Actor: The Environment and the Pulp and Paper Industry in Maine. The Journal of Economic Issues, 44(3), 717-735. Butchart, S. H. M. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, 328(5982), 1164-1168. C. Timothy Lindstrom Esq. (2012). The Federal Estate and Gift Tax--2011,2012, and Beyond (pp. 1- 33). Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. (2008). World Conservation Congress call for large-scale landscape protection. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from http://cpaws.org/news/world- conservation-congress-call-for-large-scale-landscape-protection Center for Large Landscape Conservation. Welcome to the Center for Large Landscape Conservation. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from http://www.climateconservation.org/ Clark, G. C. (2004). The Land Bond and the State of Maine: Past, Present, and Future Henry P. Kendall Foundation. Clark, S. A., & Howell, P. (2007). From Diamond International to Plum Creek: The Era of Large Landscape Conservation in the Northern Forest. Maine Policy Review, 16(2), 56-65. Conservation Biology Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, NatureServe, & The Trust for Public Land. (2012). National Conservation Easement Database: The Conservation Registry. Cousins, C. (2012, Aug. 13). East-west highway proponent asks LePage to slow down feasibility study, Bangor Daily News. Cronan, C. S., Lilieholm, R. J., Tremblay, J., & Glidden, T. (2010). An Assessment of Land Conservation Patterns in Maine Based on Spatial Analysis of Ecological and Socioeconomic Indicators. Environmental Management, 45(5), 1076-1095. Daigle, J. J., Utley, L., Chase, L. C., Kuentzel, W. F., & Brown, T. L. (2012). Does New Large Private Landownership and Their Management Priorities Influence Public Access in the

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Northern Forest? Journal of Forestry, 110(2), 89-96. Docherty, B. (2000). Maine's North Woods: Environmental justice and the national park proposal. [Article]. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 24(2), 537-561. Foster, C. H. W. (2002). Reviving Environmental Regionalism. Land Lines: Newsletter of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 14(4), 7-10. Foster, C. H. W. (Ed.). (2009). Twentieth-Century New England Land Conservation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Foster, D. R., Donahue, B. M., Kittredge, D. B., Lambert, K. F., Hunter, M. L., Hall, B. R., . . . Hart, C. M. (2010). Wildlands and Woodlands: A Vision for the New England Landscape. Ginger, C., Emery, M. R., Baumflek, M. J., & Putnam, D. E. (2012). Access to Natural Resources on Private Property: Factors Beyond Right of Entry. Society and Natural Resources, 25(7), 700-715. Graff, W., et al. (2012). Final Report of the Govenor's Task Force Regarding The Managment of Public Lands and Publicly-Held Easements. Hagan, J. M., Irland, L. C., & Whitman, A. A. (2005). Changing Timberland Ownership in the Northern Forest and Implications for Biodiversity (pp. 25). Brunswick, Maine: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Harvey III, B. E. (2010). Land Use Planning on a Grand Scale: A Decision Maker's Perspective. Maine Policy Review, 19(1), 70-73. IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Retrieved December 16, 2012, from http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/frontmatter.html. Irland, L. (2000). Maine Forests: A Century of Change, 1900-2000...and elements of policy change for a new century. Maine Policy Review, 9(1), 66-77. Jin, S., & Sader, S. A. (2006). Effects of forest ownership and change on forest harvest rates , types and trends in northern Maine. Forest Ecology and Management, 228(1-3), 177-186. Kelly, R. D. (1993). Maine land in federal, state, municipal, and non-profit conservation ownership. Kevin, B. (2012). The Fight to Create America's Newest National Park. [Web]. Outside Magazine. Land for Maine's Future Coalition. (2012). Reinventing the Economy: Port Clyde Fishermen's Cooperative, St. George: http://www.landformainesfuture.org. LeVert, M. (2008). Public Access to Maine's Private Lands: A Cultural and Economic Asset: Maine State Planning Office. LeVert, M., Colgan, C. S., & Lawton, C. (2007). Are the Economics of a Sustainable Maine Forest Sustainable? Maine Policy Review, 16(2), 26-36. Levitt, J. (2003). The Next Level: The Pingree Forest Partnership as a Private Lands Conservation Innovation: The Program on Conservation Innovation at the Harvard Forest, Harvard University. Levitt, J. (2004). Landscape-Scale Conservation: Grappling with the Green Matrix. Land Lines Magazine, 16(1). Lilieholm, R. J. (2007). Forging a Common Vision for Maine's North Woods. Maine Policy Review, 16(2), 12-25. Lilieholm, R. J., Irland, L. C., & Hagan, J. M. (2010). Changing Socio-economic Conditions for Private Woodland Protection. Earth and Environmental Science, Landscape-Scale Conservation Planning, 67-98.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

LTA. (2012a). Land Trusts. Retrieved November 5, 2012, from http://www.landtrustalliance.org/land-trusts LTA. (2012b). Conservation Donation Rules. Retrieved 2012, September 28, from http://www.landtrustalliance.org/policy/tax-matters/rules/conservation-donation-rules LTA. (2012c). Frequently Asked Questions About the Enhanced Easement Incentive. Retrieved September 28, 2012, from http://www.landtrustalliance.org/policy/tax- matters/campaigns/incentive-faqs LTA. (2012d). Farm Bill Conservation Programs. Retrieved September 28, 2012, from http://www.landtrustalliance.org/policy/public-funding/farm-bill LUPC. (2010). About the Land Use Planning Commission. Retrieved November 4, 2012, from http://www.maine.gov/doc/lupc/about.html MacDougall, P., & Stevens, A. Research - Eastern Fine Paper Company Oral History Project. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from http://umaine.edu/folklife/research-and- exhibits/research/eastern-fine-paper-company-oral-history-project/ Maine Audubon. Land Use Regulation Commission: LD 1798 - An Act to Reform Land Use Planning in the Unorganized Territory. Retrieved November 16, 2012, from http://maineaudubon.org/wildlife-habitat/legislative-action/land-use-regulation-commission/ Maine Attorney General Appeals LURC Court Decision. (2011). Office of the Maine Attorney General. Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuges. (November 9, 2011), from www.fws.gov/northeast/mainecoastal. Maine Department of Conservation. (2010a). Maine Forest Legacy Program: Assessment of Need. Maine Department of Conservation. (2010b). The Moosehead Lake Region Concept Plan: A "Working, Living Document". Maine Department of Conservation. (2012a). Conservation Easement Registry. Maine Department of Conservation. (2012b). 2011 Annual Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. Maine Forest Service. (2005). Forest Certification. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/certification/ Maine Land Trust Network. (2010). Alphabetical List of Land Trusts in Maine. Maine Coast Heritage Trust. Retrieved December 15, 2012, from http://www.mltn.org/view_trusts- alphabetical.php Maine Legislature. (2012). An Act to Reform Land Use Planning in the Unorganized Territory. Retrieved September 29, 2012, from http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?lD=1798&snum=125 Maine Pulp & Paper Association. (2010). History of Papermaking. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://www.pulpandpaper.org/history.shtml Maine Revised Statutes. (2012). McKinney, M., Scarlett, L., & Kemmis, D. (2010). Large Landscape Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. McLaughlin, N. A. (2007). Conservation Easements: Perpetuity and Beyond. Ecology Law Quarterly, 34(2), 673-712. Miller, K. (2012, March 15). Plum Creek gets OK from state supreme court, Bangor Daily News. Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge. (September 27, 2011). Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, from www.fws.gov/northeast.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

National Park Service: Acadia National Park. (2012), from www.nps.gov/acad. Neugarten, R. A., Wolf, S. A., Stedman, R. C., & Tear, T. H. (2011). Integrating Ecological and Socioeconomic Monitoring of Working Forests. BioScience, 61(8), 631-637. NEFF. (2011). Easement Monitoring Program. Retrieved November 1, 2012, from http://www.newenglandforestry.org/conservation/easement-monitoring.html New England Governors' Conference Inc. (2010). Blue Ribbon Commission on Land Conservation 2010 Report to the Governors. Noone, M. D., Sader, S. A., & Legaard, K. R. (2012). Are forest disturbance rates and composition influenced by changing ownerships, conservation easements, and land certification? Forest Science, 58(2), 119-129. NEFA. (2001). The Economic Importance of Maine's Forests. NEFA. (2007). The Economic Importance of Wood Flows from Maine's Forests, 2007. Northern Forest Lands Council. (1994). Finding a Common Ground: Conserving the Northern Forest. NRCM. North Woods Protection & LUPC. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://www.nrcm.org/issue_northwoods.asp NRCM. Plum Creek's Massive Moosehead Proposal. Retrieved November 16, 2012, from http://www.nrcm.org/issue_plumcreek.asp NRCM. (2011). Major Land Sales in Maine Since 1998. NRCM. (2012). LURC Reform 2011-2012. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://www.nrcm.org/lurc_reform_commission.asp Obama, B. (2010). Presidential Memorandum--America's Great Outdoors. Office of the Science Advisor, US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010). LLC Information Bulletin #1: Form and Function. Olmsted, J. L. (2011). The Invisible Forest: Conservation Easement Databases and the End of the Clandestine Conservation of Natural Lands. Duke Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems, 74(51), 51-82. Peat Marwick, M., & Co. (1989). Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, Maine Department of Conservation : management study. 49 leaves. Penobscot River Restoration Trust. (2012). Restoring access to critical habitat for the sea-run fisheries of Maine's largest watershed. Retrieved November 6, 2012, from http://www.penobscotriver.org/ Pidot, J. (2010). Conservation Easement Reform: As Maine Goes Should the Nation Follow? Duke Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems, 74(1), 1-27. Pidot, J., Johnson, Catherine B., Didisheim, Pete, Berk, Judy. Maine's North Woods: Changes, Challenges, and Options to Protect Maine's Heritage. In NRCM (Ed.): Natural Resources Council of Maine. Plum Creek. (2009). Plum Creek Concept Plan for the Moosehead Lake Region: Executive Summary. Plum Creek Timber Company Inc. (2012). Plum Creek is one of the largest landowners in the nation and the most geographically diverse. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from http://www.plumcreek.com/ Regional Plan Association, & America 2050. (2012). Landscapes: Improving Conservation Practices in the Northeast Megaregion. RESTORE: The North Woods. (2012). Plum Creek Watch: Current Status. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from http://www.mainewoods.org/plum-creek-watch/

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Richardson, B. (2008). Regional landscape conservation in Maine : best practices for enhancing quality of place. Augusta, Me.: Maine State Planning Office. Richardson Jr., J. J., & Bernard, A. C. (2011). Zoning for Conservation Easements. Law & Contemporary Problems, 74(4), 83-108. Ricketts, T., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Loucks, C., Eichbaum, W., DellaSalla, D., . . . Walters, S. (1999). Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment. Washington DC: Island Press. Rissman, A. R., Lozier, L., Comendant, T., Kareiva, P., Kiesecker, J. M., Shaw, M. R., & Merenlender, A. M. (2007). Conservation Easements: Biodiversity Protection and Private Use. Conservation Biology, 21(3), 709-718. Roche, P., Manchanda, T., & Tyson, W. (2008). State of Private Land Conservation in Maine. State of Maine's Environment 2008, 182-224. Rockström, J. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(282): 472-475. Rose, G. (2003). A Brief History of the Maine Economy. Maine State Planning Office. Sachs et al. (2009). Biodiversity Conservation and the Millennium Development Goals. Science, 325(5947), 1502-1503. Sader, S. A., Ross, K., & Reed, F. C. (2002). Pingree Forest Partnership: Monitoring Easements at the Landscape Level. Journal of Forestry, 100(3), 20-25. Saviello, T. (2012, Aug. 26). East-west highway concerns are larger than eminent domain, Bangor Daily News. Seelye, K. Q. (2012, Aug. 4). Plan to Speed Travel with Toll Road in Maine Hits a Nerve, The New York Times. Stop the Corridor. Issues and Concerns. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from http://stopthecorridor.org/?page_id=206 Tapley, L. (2012). 15 Reasons the East-West Highway Will Never Be Built (Plus a Political Bonus!): Analysis: Nails in the coffin, The Portland Phoenix. Taylor, C. D. (2012). Conservation Easement Tax Credits: A Viable Policy for Stimulating Donations? State and Local Government Review, 44(2), 101-112. The Brookings Institution. (2006). Charting Maine's Future: An Action Plan for Promoting Sustainable Prosperity and Quality Places. Washington, DC. The Brookings Institution. (2012). Charting Maine's Future--Making Headway. The Land for Maine's Future Program. (2011). The 2011 Biennial Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. Augusta, Maine. TNC. (2012). 363,000 Acres of Moosehead Lake Region Conserved. Retrieved 2012, November 16, from http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/maine/newsro om/363000-acres-of-moosehead-lake-region-conserved.xml The Trust for Public Land. (2012). Return on the Investment in Land for Maine's Future. Treasury (Tax) Regulations. (2012): Government Printing Office. Turkel, T. (2012, May 16). Moosehead lake pact links 2 million conserved acres, Portland Press Herald. University of Southern Maine, & University of Maine. (2004). The Land for Maine's Future Program: Increasing the Return on a Sound Public Investment. US Code. (2012): Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. USDA Forest Service. (2009). Landscape Scale Conservation in the Northeast and Midwest. US DOI. (2011). America's Great Outdoors: Fifty-State Report.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Vail, D., & Hultkrantz, L. (2000). Property rights and sustainable nature tourism: adaptation and mal-adaptation in Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA). Ecological Economics, 35, 223-242. Vincent, C. H. (2006). Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Current Issues. The Library of Congress. Walker, A. J., & Ryan, R. L. (2008). Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(2), 141-152. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.02.001 Wildlands & Woodlands Initiative. (2012a). Regional Conservation Partnerships (RCPs): The New Face of Conservation in New England. Wildlands & Woodlands Initiative. (2012b). Wildlands and Woodlands: A Vision for the New England Landscape: 2012 Update. Wildlands Network. (2009). N. Apps Corridor. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://www.twp.org/wildways/eastern-wildway/n-apps-corridor Wolf, S. A., & Klein, J. A. (2007). Entering the working forest: Discourse analysis in the Northern Forest. Geoforum, 38(5), 985-998. Youngman, J. Conservation Land Restrictions and Real Property Taxation. Retrieved November 4, 2012, from http://www.mass.gov/dor/local-officials/dls-newsroom/ct/conservation- restrictions-and-real-property.html

Personal Communications Kathy Eickenberg, Chief of Planning, Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands Monica Erhart, Linkage Coordinator, Staying Connected Initiative Theresa Kerchner, Executive Director, Kennebec Land Trust Emily Pagan, Land Resource Specialist, Acadia National Park Chris Pryor, Conservation Easement Monitoring Coordinator and Forester, New England Forestry Foundation R. Collin Therrien, Senior Planner and Administrator, Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Peter Stein, Managing Director of the Lyme Timber Company Wolfe Tone, Maine State Director, Trust for Public Land Warren Whitney, Land Trust Program Manager, Maine Coast Heritage Trust

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The State of Energy Infrastructure in Maine By Kaitlyn Bernard, Jackson Broadbent Executive Summary

The State of Energy Infrastructure in Maine is the second chapter in The State of Maine’s Environment 2012, a collaborative report produced by Environmental Policy students in the Environmental Studies Program at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. This is the seventh State of Maine’s Environment report published since 2004.

This chapter examines the current state of energy infrastructure in Maine and focuses primarily on the transmission of electricity and natural gas. We describe the process of electricity and natural gas transmission in general and discuss how it relates to the production and consumption of energy in Maine and New England. We identify a number of trends in energy transmission and analyze how specific infrastructure developments have contributed to these issues. We evaluate the role the energy infrastructure has on a number of environmental concerns, most notably climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, we consider how energy infrastructure is affected by command-and-control and market-based policies aimed at reducing emissions. Maine and New England have a number of infrastructure development projects on the horizon. We identify some of these proposed projects and discuss their possible implications for Maine and New England's energy future. Based on our research, we recommend upgrading Maine’s electricity transmission network to accommodate for a growth in renewable electricity generation and transmission of clean energy throughout New England. In terms of natural gas development, we recommend cautious and incremental expansion of Maine’s natural gas transmission network to aid in a transition away from oil and ultimately towards a sustainable energy future. Introduction

Energy use in the US can be characterized by three interconnected systems: production, transmission, and consumption. Energy production is the first step in the system, where renewable and nonrenewable resources are converted into energy. The type and source of production tend to dominate the national and international political media regarding energy. At the end of the system, the consumption sector deals with energy consumers. It includes the electricity and heat powering households, the fuel burned in vehicles, and the energy used by commercial and industrial facilities to produce goods and services (Wolfson, 2008). Individuals are generally most familiar with this part of the system, with concerns about their energy bills and individual use. In between these two parts is the transmission network, dealing with the overall energy infrastructure and moving energy from its source to the end user. Transmission infrastructure not only directly influences the types of energy we have

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

available, but it also dictates future energy developments (Turkel, 2012b). A consideration of the current status of energy infrastructure is necessary to understand the broader challenges and analyze the nation’s energy system.

Maine’s unique geographic location between the rest of New England and the Canadian Maritime Provinces makes it important to the regional energy transmission network. The regional network is characterized by interconnected pipelines and electricity transmission lines which distribute energy across the state and region. In this context, Maine serves as an energy corridor for the region by moving energy from source to end-user across state lines and the Canadian border (Turkel, 2012a). Maine is essentially the “last frontier” in the nation’s natural gas network, with an open market, high consumer demand, and significant opportunities for statewide expansion. Maine’s current natural gas pipeline network links the state to the Maritimes and Northeast pipeline and the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, both of which carry natural gas from Canada (Dickerson, 2012).

The state’s network of electricity transmission lines is aging and can no longer efficiently handle the electricity the network demands. Most of these electricity lines were constructed in the 1960s and 70s, making the network roughly 40 years old (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007). These conditions create challenges for electricity transmission by reducing power reliability, creating bottlenecks which limit electricity transfer from source to demand, and constrain the potential for new renewable development.

We identified these emerging trends in transmission as salient issues in the state of Maine. In our research, we compare the role of natural gas pipelines and electricity lines and how each drives changes in Maine’s energy portfolio. Our overall focus is on the electricity sector of the energy landscape, but we also discuss the use of natural gas to provide heat to consumers in Maine.

Goals and Objectives

In this chapter we examine the state of energy infrastructure in Maine with particular emphasis on electricity transmission and natural gas networks. First, we examine the historical context of energy development in Maine. Next, we identify the current state of natural gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines and explore future development proposals in each infrastructure type. Based on these findings, we identify relevant drivers of change, including businesses and utilities, market-based policies and incentives, and environmental concerns. We summarize these findings as a series of conclusions about the state of energy infrastructure in Maine. Finally, we conclude with a set of policy recommendations based on our analysis and research.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Historical Context

Energy development in Maine is associated with the evolution of Maine’s economy. As early as 1680, abundant water resources allowed industries to operate mills run by hydropower. The availability of hydropower encouraged development along Maine’s rivers in the timber, agricultural, and textile industries (Smith, 1951). These mills were isolated systems generating enough power to cover local demand (MaineASCE, 2008). The shift from isolated, water-dependent energy sources to larger scale electricity transmission influenced Maine's development trajectory, allowing communities and industries to move away from the riverbanks and closer to raw materials and markets (MaineASCE, 2008).

As Maine's population grew, energy needs shifted towards filling consumer needs. There became an economic incentive to merge these small, isolated industrial energy producers into larger utility companies. Mergers lowered individual operating costs and opened up the transmission system to more end-users. The original isolated energy producers grew into the three main electric service providers in Maine: Central Maine Power (CMP), Bangor Hydro Electric (BHE), and Maine Public Service Company (MPS) (MaineASCE, 2008). Through this merger period, these utilities operated under a vertically integrated paradigm, owning both the generation facilities that produced electricity and the transmission systems to deliver it. This gave them substantial monopoly power within their geographic service territories (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007).

Initially the three large electricity utilities remained disconnected from each other and dominated their respective areas. The state resisted out of state connections, with the state government maintaining the strict doctrine of “Maine power for Maine people" through the early 1900s (Smith, 1951). During this time, the state legislature blocked several attempts to open Maine’s energy markets by connecting to power grids in other states and Canada. However, as electricity demand increased, the main electric utilities connected their transmission systems to improve electrical reliability and reduce the costs of operating independently. BHE increased their transmission network to connect with CMP, and they both connected to New Hampshire's transmission network. This connection was instrumental in connecting Maine to the rest of New England's electrical grid. MPS in northern Maine connected to New Brunswick's transmission network and still operates independently of the New England power grid system (MaineASCE, 2008).

This expansion of the transmission system in New England was mostly constructed in the 1960s and early 1970s, so the power lines which make up the regional electricity grid are about 40 years old (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007). Initially, these connections were only used to provide increased system reliability and share excess power generation. The utilities had no obligation to allow other companies to transport electricity over their transmission lines and rarely coordinated (Polestar Communications & Strategic

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Analysis, 2007). In 1965, a major blackout sparked coordination between New England utilities to increase reliability and security. This initial coordination was organized by the New England Power Pool and was a voluntary system to maintain the day-to-day supply and demand balance of the region’s grid (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007).

Substantial changes in the electricity industry happened as a result of the federal Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) forced electric utilities to restructure and allow open access to their transmission networks (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007).

Maine’s Electric Industry Restructuring law was enacted on March 1st, 2000. This law required electricity utilities to divest from generation facilities, creating an open electricity market. Electricity utilities maintain the transmission and distribution systems, but no longer have affiliation with electricity generating sources (PUC, 1997).

Disconnecting electricity generating plants from utilities operating the transmission network improved the competitiveness of the electricity market. With this ownership shift, independent system operators (ISO) were needed to monitor the competitive electricity market. The ISOs are responsible for managing the procurement of energy generation and overseeing efficient transmission and distribution of energy (ISO New England, 2012b). This open, regional market is how energy is allocated throughout the region today.

In addition to developments in electricity transmission networks, the emergence of natural gas in Maine has been a major driver of changes to the state's sources of energy. Prior to 1999, natural gas did not exist as a source for electricity generation in Maine, and electricity came from petroleum, coal, nuclear, hydro power and biomass sources (EIA, 2010b). Maine had one nuclear power facility, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company in Wiscasset. Maine Yankee started generating power in 1972, but was decommissioned in 1996 because it was no longer economically viable to operate (Maine Historical Society, 2010). At that time, Maine Yankee provided the second largest share of electricity generating capacity in the state (EIA, 2010b).

In 1999 Maine connected to the region’s natural gas transmission network with the development of the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline (M&NP) and the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS). Both of these pipeline networks carry natural gas from sources in Canada and merge into one jointly owned pipeline in Portland, Maine. This jointly owned line connects into the regional transmission network in the Boston area (Maritime and Northeast Pipeline, 2009). The new influx of natural gas quickly changed the composition of sources used in the electric power industry, and by 2001 natural gas had the greatest installed generating capacity of all sources in New England (EIA, 2010b). Figure 2.1 shows the change in the electricity generating capacity of primary sources in Maine between 1995 and 2010.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 2.1 Electricity generating capacity by primary source in Maine from 1995 to 2010 (Source: US Energy Information Agency, 2010)

These historic infrastructure development trends directly influence the types of energy we have available and dictate our energy future. Maine must be deliberate in energy infrastructure development so we can build effectively for tomorrow’s energy needs. Methods

We first conducted a literature review to gather information about stakeholders and regulatory bodies involved with Maine energy policy. We also drew on reports detailing energy projects in Maine to provide an understanding of the current state of energy development in Maine. Of special note is a book published in 1951 about Maine’s energy policy, which aided us in developing the historical context (Smith, 1951).

We attended the GrowSmart Maine 2012 and Sustain Mid-Maine conferences to gather information and establish contacts with energy experts. We also met Colby alumnus Matt Kearns, Vice President of Northeast Business Development for First Wind and spoke with him about specific aspects of wind energy development. This provided us with insight into the permitting process for wind projects. Mr. Kearns also shared the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) permit application for the Bowers Mountain wind project.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

We spoke with Dylan Voorhees and Emmie Theberge with the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) about current trends in natural gas development and Maine’s current energy landscape. Tom Tietenberg, Colby Economics Professor emeritus and expert on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), provided information about Maine’s role within regional energy markets and the benefits Maine has garnered from RGGI.

Our data highlights a number of trends in energy use in Maine, New England and the US. A majority of the data comes from the US Energy Information Administration website and shows trends in electricity generating capacity, natural gas consumption by sector, prices of fuel, and carbon dioxide emissions. We also reviewed ISO-New England’s interconnection queue to gather data on transmission investment in Maine and New England. Our GIS data came from the Maine Office of GIS and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

This report is focused on statewide trends in electricity and natural gas infrastructure. Electricity and natural gas consumption are often divided by consumer group (residential, commercial and industrial) but our study does not differentiate among these three groups. Additionally, we did not consider energy data on transportation, as it is beyond the scope of this report. Our study focuses on the electricity sector of Maine’s overall energy profile, but we consider the role of natural gas in both electricity generation and consumer heating. Laws and Institutions

Maine’s electricity portfolio is regulated by federal and state laws relating to energy infrastructure, investment, and development. These laws address a range of issues and policy objectives, including regulating the energy market, setting standards for different types of sources, and investments and incentives for energy efficiency and renewables.

Transmission of both electricity and natural gas are regulated by different government bodies and laws. New England’s electricity transmission network is regulated regionally, but both federal and state laws have oversight for portfolio standards and incentives. Trends in natural gas development incorporate Maine and New England into the interstate and international transmission network of natural gas. Maine laws are responsible for regulating the state’s management of existing pipelines and the development of new pipelines that could shape the future of Maine as an energy corridor.

Federal Laws

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has authority over utilities and regulates the production, distribution, and market of various sources of energy. FERC and other regulatory bodies like the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) ensure fair and reliable distribution of electricity.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 entirely restructured the country’s electricity market. This law gave FERC the authority to force electricity utilities to divest from generating facilities and allow open access to transmission networks (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007). This restructuring opened up the electricity market in order to increase competition and lower consumer prices (PUC, 1997).

Another relevant law impacting energy infrastructure development is the production tax credit (PTC) for renewable energy. The PTC was initially implemented in 1992 and has been renewed and expanded multiple times. It incentivizes renewable energy development by providing a per-kilowatt-hour tax credit for all renewably generated electricity. This is one of the most critical components of the future of the wind energy industry (Kearns, 2012). These tax credits were most recently reinstated in 2009, but are set to expire in 2013 unless Congress renews them. If the PTC was extended, wind energy development would have significant potential to develop rapidly by decreasing costs of development, increasing incentives to invest in wind projects, and providing a sense of stability to the entire industry (Kearns, 2012). The future of these tax credits will have a huge impact on renewable energy development across the country and in Maine.

Table 2.1 Selected Federal Laws Regulating Energy Infrastructure and Development Law Year Description Location Broke up large PUHC trusts that controlled the Public Utility Holding Company 15 USC §79 1935 electric industry, gives FERC regulatory control Act (PUHCA) over them and requiring transparency. Grants FERC authority over inter and intra state 15 USC Natural Gas Policy Act 1978 gas production. Established price ceilings with §3301 eventual phase out. Incentivizes renewable energy production by providing a per-kilowatt-hour tax credit for Renewable Electricity 1992 electricity generated by qualified energy sources. 26 USC §45 Production Tax Credit (PTC) Has been renewed and expanded multiple times, most recently in 2009. Restructured electric utilities by disconnecting generational facilities from electricity service 42 USC Energy Policy Act of 1992 1992 providers. Opened up electricity market and §13201 increased competition. Requires wholesale transmission of electric FERC Orders 888 and 889 1996 energy be unbundled from the sale of power Created the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), a self-regulatory “electric 42 USC Energy Policy Act of 2005 2005 reliability organization” to develop and enforce §15801 reliability standards and monitor the bulk power system. Extended tax credits for renewable energy American Recovery and production (until 2014) and provided funding for 42 USC 2009 Reinvestment Act 2009 energy infrastructure and investment in energy §16516 efficiency and renewable energy research.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

State Laws

State laws influence where infrastructure developments can be located and set statewide goals and incentives. The Natural Resource Protection Act designates Maine’s natural resources as significant assets for the state and formally establishes that these assets are worth protecting. The law has a mandated permitting process for any development that will impact protected natural resources or wetlands (DEP, 2011b). These permits dictate where energy transmission developments can occur. More recently, the state legislature passed “The Act Regarding Energy Infrastructure Development” in 2011, which sets up a process for companies to develop energy pipelines or transmission lines along I-95 and two other right of way corridors (Table 2.2).

State energy policies also provide economic subsidies and incentives which drive changes in energy infrastructure development. There has been a recent overall shift towards supporting more green energy development, with mechanisms like Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and the Efficiency Maine Trust Act (DSIRE, 2012).

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) set targets for increasing the share of renewable energy in state energy portfolios. These standards vary in scale and implementation deadlines from state to state and set minimum levels of renewable energy that must serve each state (Yin & Powers, 2010). Maine has a strong RPS target when compared to other New England states, setting a goal of 40% renewable energy sources by 2017 (Figure 2.2). This target is broken up into two different classes: Class I consists of the new renewables developed after 2005; Class II includes renewables that existed before 2005. Maine’s Class I standard for new energy generation requires 10% of development to be sourced by renewables by 2017 (DSIRE, 2012).

Figure 2.2 Comparison of New England Renewable Portfolio Standards (DSIRE, 2012)

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Maine is part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a market-based emissions reduction program. RGGI sets a regional cap on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that power plants are allowed to emit. Each plant is given tradable emissions allowances which are bought and sold at RGGI auctions. These auctions create incentives for facilities to operate efficiently and promote a shift towards more renewable electricity generating capacity (RGGI Inc., 2012a). In Maine, the revenue from these auctions is used to support energy efficiency through The Efficiency Maine Trust. Efficiency Maine uses this funding to help businesses invest in energy-efficient equipment, help low-income households weatherize their homes, and promote programs designed to reduce energy demand (RGGI Inc., 2012b).

Table 2.2 Selected State Laws Regulating Energy Infrastructure and Development in Maine Law Year Description Location A permit is required when an activity will impact Natural Resource Protection Act 1988 38 MRS §480 any protected natural resource or wetland. Forced vertically integrated electric utilities to divest from their generation facilities and An Act to Restructure the State’s 35-A MRS § 1997 maintain control only over transmission of Electricity Industry 3204 electricity in order to create a fair and competitive electricity market system. Provides grants to non-profit and community Voluntary Renewable Resources 35-A MRS organizations for the development of renewable Grants 1997 §3210 energy. Establishes the Efficiency Maine Trust 35-A MRS The Efficiency Maine Trust Act 2009 responsible for Maine’s energy efficiency and §10101 renewable energy programs. Declares that natural gas transmission is of public Revised Statutes Regarding 35-A MRS 2010 concern. Regulates process for constructing Natural Gas Utilities c.45 §4502 pipelines. Sets the state goals for renewable energy's share of the energy market. By 2017, Maine must have 35-A MRS c. Renewable Portfolio Standards 2011 40% renewable energy sources. 32. §3210

Sets up a process under which companies/developers can apply to the State to An Act Regarding Energy 35-A MRS c. 2011 build pipelines, transmission lines or other energy Infrastructure Development 45. §4501 infrastructure along I-95 and two other corridors.

Stakeholders

Maine's energy field has a diverse range of stakeholders involving federal, regional, and local governments, industry, NGOs, and consumers. Each stakeholder group has a role in facilitating the success of the regional energy infrastructure system across New England and eastern Canada.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Federal Stakeholders

Department of Energy

The US Department of Energy is charged with addressing federal energy, environmental and nuclear policies (US DOE, 2012). The DOE is especially focused on supporting research and development in new energy science and technology. It is one of the six federal agencies which provide about 97% of all federal academic research and development support in science and engineering (National Science Foundation, 2012). In Maine, the DOE has been involved in funding renewable energy development research, especially the offshore wind technology program at the University of Maine (Graff, 2010).

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

FERC is an independent agency that regulates the transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. It oversees siting of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities and monitors energy markets across the country. It also provides oversight in environmental matters associated with interstate energy transmission (FERC, 2012).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The Environmental Protection Agency enforces all federal laws protecting human health and the environment. It ensures that environmental protection is part of any federal policy, especially with policies concerning industry, energy, and natural resources. In addition to developing and enforcing regulations, the EPA studies environmental issues and provides grants to state environmental programs, non-profits, and educational institutions (EPA, 2012c).

Army Corps of Engineers

The US Army Corps of Engineers provides oversight for any projects or developments impacting wetlands and waterways. It has permitting power over any type of development that has potential wetland impact (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2012). This is especially important in determining locations of natural gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines. It is much easier to implement projects that avoid wetland impacts altogether because the US Army Corps permit process is extensive (Kearns, 2012).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Regional Stakeholders

Independent System Operator- New England (ISO-NE)

Regional electricity transmission for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont is operated by ISO-New England. ISO-NE is responsible for managing electricity demand and reliability across the entire region and ensuring competitive markets for electricity. ISO-NE also forecasts future energy demand and plans development projects in New England (ISO New England, 2012b). ISO-NE does not regulate the electricity utilities in northern Maine.

Northern Maine Independent System Administrator (NMISA)

The electric utility companies serving consumers in Northern Maine operate under the Northern Maine Independent System Administrator. These four companies include: Maine Public Service Company, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, Houlton Water Company, and Van Buren Light and Power District. New Brunswick Power, the utility serving the province of New Brunswick, is also a member of this regional network. NMISA is responsible for the administration of the northern Maine transmission system and electricity markets, similar to ISO-NE’s regional oversight (NMISA, 2012).

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

RGGI is a cooperative effort among Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to reduce carbon dioxide emissions produced by electricity generating facilities. It is the first mandatory, market-based emissions reduction program in the United States and establishes a regional cap on the amount of CO2 that power plants can emit (RGGI Inc., 2012a). Each plant is given tradable emissions allowances which are bought and sold at RGGI auctions. This initiative provides an economic incentive for industrial energy producers to operate as efficiently as possible because the amount they emit influences the amount they have to pay at the auction (Tietenberg, 2012).

Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS)

The Portland Natural Gas Transmission System is an interstate natural gas pipeline that connects to the TransQuebec and Maritimes Pipeline at the Canadian - New Hampshire border. The pipeline carries gas through New Hampshire into Maine and then connects with the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline in Westbrook, ME. Since it was completed in 1999, the PNGTS has provided utilities, industrial plants and electricity generating facilities across New England with natural gas (Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, 2000).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline (M&NP)

The Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline was built in 1999 and transmits natural gas from offshore developments in Nova Scotia to Atlantic Canada and New England. The M&NP crosses the Canadian - Maine border near Baileyville, ME and connects to the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System in Westbrook, ME. At this connection point, the two pipelines become a jointly owned pipeline that continues into Massachusetts. (Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline, 2009).

Maine Stakeholders

Maine’s Energy Companies

The largest electricity providers in Maine are investor owned utility companies: Central Maine Power, Bangor Hydro Electric, and Maine Public Service. These utilities serve the majority of end-users and consumers in the state and drive electricity development and transmission system changes and upgrades (MaineASCE, 2008).

Maine has 10 small consumer owned utilities operating at the community level across the state: Monhegan Plantation Power District, Eastern Maine Electric Company, Houlton Water Company, Kennebunk Light & Power District, Isle-Au-Haut Electric Power Company, Van Buren Light & Power District, Swans Island Cooperative, Fox Islands Electric Cooperative, Town of Madison, and Matinicus Plantation Electric. These companies have a smaller overall impact on the state electricity market because they serve smaller and more localized consumer bases. Consumer owned utilities have more operational flexibility because they are not influenced by stockholders and larger corporate interests.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 2.3 Electricity service providers by region (Source: Maine Office of GIS)

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Three natural gas distributors currently operate in the state: Unitil, Bangor Gas Company, and Maine Natural Gas. These companies are authorized and regulated by the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to provide local distribution of natural gas. Unitil serves consumers in the greater Portland area, Lewiston and Auburn, and Kittery. It is based out of Hampton, New Hampshire and is serviced by the Granite State Pipeline, which crosses into Maine from Portsmouth, New Hampshire (PUC, 2008b).

Bangor, Brewer, Veazie, Orono, and Old Town are served by Bangor Gas Company. Bangor Gas is a subsidiary of Energy West and gets its gas supply from the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline (PUC, 2008b).

Maine Natural Gas serves the southern Maine communities of Windham, Gorham, Bowdoin, Bath, West Bath, Freeport, Pownal, Topsham and Brunswick. The company distributes natural gas for heating to businesses and residences in these communities, and is seeking to expand its distribution network to Augusta and the Kennebec Valley region (Maine Natural Gas, 2012).

Summit Utilities is looking to develop a natural gas consumer base in Maine, but still needs approval from the Maine PUC before it can begin the construction process. They have opened a subsidiary office, Summit Natural Gas of Maine, but they currently operate exclusively in Colorado and Missouri. Summit has been planning a natural gas pipeline development project to bring gas to the Kennebec Valley area (Summit Utilities Inc., 2012).

Governor’s Energy Office (GEO)

In Maine, the Governor's Energy Office (GEO) plays a significant role in directing the state’s energy resources and goals. Their mission is "to create effective public and private partnerships that advance Maine's energy security, economic development, and environmental health (Fletcher, 2012)." Currently, the GEO is working under the main goals outlined in the "Maine Energy Action Plan", which consists of five main components:

1. Decreasing electricity prices and overall energy costs 2. Extending natural gas services and transmission infrastructure to Maine residential, commercial, and industrial consumers 3. Strengthening energy efficiency, conservation and weatherization and fostering renewable energy 4. Reducing oil use by 50% by 2050 5. Preparing an energy assurance and emergency preparedness response plan (Fletcher, 2012) Development in terms of natural gas expansion and electricity infrastructure upgrades fall under these goals.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Local Governments

Local governments determine zoning laws, which have significant regulatory power in the siting of energy development. Local approval is needed for the development of transmission lines or new pipelines. As wind developments continue to pop up across the state, local and municipal governments are enacting ordinances to regulate all aspects of wind facility development (Dickerson, 2012). Differences among these local regulations can impact the success and location of energy development projects in Maine.

Efficiency Maine

Efficiency Maine is an independent trust working to implement energy-saving programs across the state. Their efforts to decrease electricity and heating fuel demand and costs are cost-effective - every dollar spent on their programs provides more than 2.5 times the benefits. The Efficiency Maine Trust is funded through a surcharge on electricity rates and support from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Using a combination of educational and technical programs, Efficiency Maine sets specific targets in electricity, natural gas and heating fuel consumption and administers energy efficiency and alternative energy programs in Maine (Efficiency Maine, 2012).

Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC)

Maine’s Land Use Planning Commission has jurisdiction over planning and zoning for the Unorganized Territory of the state of Maine. Previously, LUPC was responsible for approving development permits for large projects proposed in the state's Unorganized Territory. In 2012, the Land Use Regulatory Commission was reorganized into LUPC under the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (Livesay, 2012). Since then, site law permits for development in the Unorganized Territory are handled by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, and LUPC plays more of a consulting (rather than regulatory) role (Kearns, 2012).

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

After the reorganization of LUPC, the Maine DEP became the lead permitting authority for energy upgrades in Maine. Its site law permits determine what types of infrastructure upgrades and projects can be developed. The Maine DEP processes applications for project permits (including wind power projects), and is also responsible for enforcing Maine’s environmental laws to protect against air, water, and land pollution (DEP, 2011a).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Maine Public Utilities Commission (ME PUC)

The Commission regulates electricity and natural gas utilities to maintain reliability, safety, and fair utility rates. It also regulates electricity transmission and natural gas distribution (PUC, 2008a). MPUC does not regulate smaller scale electricity projects like small wind development unless they exceed a certain size megawatt generation size (Kearns, 2012).

Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)

Maine has strong environmental NGOs which monitor and shape state policy. The Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM), Environment Maine, and 350 Maine are just a few of the active groups engaged in energy transmission issues. These organizations oppose the tar sands pipeline proposal in Maine and are wary of natural gas expansion across the state (350 Maine, 2012; Environment Maine Research & Policy Center, 2011; NRCM, 2012a).

State of Electricity Transmission in Maine

Maine’s electricity transmission system is on the verge of significant infrastructure development. The network of power lines crossing the state and connecting Maine’s grid to eastern Canada and the rest of New England is aging, and the grid is no longer able to efficiently handle the loads demanded (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007). These conditions create challenges for electricity transmission by reducing power reliability, creating bottlenecks which limit electricity transfer, and constrain the potential for more renewable electricity development.

Electricity transmission is a regional issue, with an interconnected grid of electricity generating sources and utilities delivering the power to end-users. Due to federal and state restructuring laws, electricity generating facilities are entirely disconnected from the utility companies which deliver the electricity (PUC, 1997). Utility companies are regulated by each state’s Public Utilities Commission, with federal oversight from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Electricity generation and supply companies are not affiliated with utility companies.

Electricity utilities in Maine can be divided into two different types: investor owned utilities and consumer owned utilities. The three largest electricity providers in the state are investor owned utility companies: Central Maine Power, Bangor Hydro Electric, and Maine Public Service Company. Maine also has ten small consumer-owned utilities operating at the community level across the state (PUC, 2008c). These consumer owned cooperatives have more operational flexibility because they aren’t influenced by stockholders or larger

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

corporate interests. Surplus earnings are typically used to invest back into the organization (Miller, 2008).

Independent System Operators (ISOs) serve to balance the supply and demand of electricity and ensure efficient transmission and distribution across regional grid networks. These independent, non-profit institutions serve as an umbrella over both electricity generation facilities and electric utilities distribution systems (ISO New England, 2012b).

Maine is unique because it is the only New England state with two ISOs managing the electricity market. Four electric utility companies in Northern Maine operate under the Northern Maine Independent System Administrator (NMISA). NMISA is a FERC-approved sub-control area of the New Brunswick System Operator (NBSO), which administers regional transmission access and monitors electricity markets in Northern Maine (Maine Public Service Company, 2007). Maine Public Service Company and the Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative are the largest utilities operating under NMISA, along with two smaller utilities: Houlton Water Company and Van Buren Light & Power District. NMISA is not directly connected to the rest of the electricity transmission grid in Maine or the rest of New England, but is indirectly connected through New Brunswick (Maine Public Service Company, 2007).

ISO-New England manages the regional electricity network connecting Maine to Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont (ISO New England, 2012b). The other nine electric utilities in the state of Maine operate under ISO- New England, so the majority of Maine’s electricity market and transmission are subject to ISO-New England’s oversight.

There are a number of market-based policies that have driven energy infrastructure development. Maine’s 40% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goal by 2017 demonstrates the state’s commitment to renewable electricity generation and will necessitate infrastructure changes to accommodate new renewable sources. Incentives from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) encourage Maine to produce electricity from less carbon intensive sources, and the revenues from the carbon auction are used to support energy efficiency programs across the state. The federal Production Tax Credit incentivizes renewable energy development and makes renewable energy sources more competitive against fossil fuels in the electricity market. These policy and economic incentives have driven the electricity transmission system and will continue to shape the future of Maine’s energy infrastructure.

These incentives are driven by Maine’s natural resources. The state can commit to these strong clean energy goals because it has potential for renewable energy development. Taking advantage of Maine’s renewable resources will provide social, economic, and environmental benefits for the state. These conditions drive energy infrastructure development.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

State of Natural Gas Transmission in Maine

The transmission of natural gas in New England is achieved through several interstate and international pipelines. The Tennessee Gas Pipeline and the Algonquin Gas Transmission Pipeline carry natural gas from domestic sources in the South and Midwest US to processing facilities in the Boston area (EIA, 2008). Meanwhile, the Maritime and Northeast Pipeline and the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System carry natural gas from sources in Eastern and Western Canada through Maine and down to the Boston area (Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline, 2009; Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, 2000). Along the way, these major pipelines connect to local distribution companies and natural gas is dispersed through smaller transmission networks or burned by electricity generating facilities and then mixed into the regional supply of electricity.

Since 1999, only a portion of the natural gas imported from Canada has been consumed in the Maine and the state acts as a corridor for the transmission of natural gas to the rest of New England. Figure 2.4 shows the amount of natural gas imported into Maine from Canada, the amount of natural gas transmitted from Maine to the rest of New England, and the total amount of natural gas consumed in Maine.

Figure 2.4 Natural gas imports from Canada to Maine, net interstate trade of natural gas from Maine to New England and total consumption of natural gas in Maine between 1997 and 2010 (Source: US Energy Information Agency, 2010)

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

This figure shows the effects of transmission developments that occurred in 1999, as well as the surplus of imported gas that is not consumed in Maine and moves out of state to serve the rest of New England. The recent growth in imported natural gas does not appear to have affected the quantity of gas consumed in Maine. Total consumption has been relatively stable since 2005, despite greater quantities of gas moving through the state (EIA, 2010a).

The influx of natural gas allowed by the infrastructure developments in 1999 has had lasting effects on the region’s energy profile, and these changes are shown most clearly in the electric power sector (EIA, 2010b). Figure 2.5 shows the changes in electricity generating capacity by different sources of energy, and it highlights the effects of the completion of the M&NP and the PNGTS in 1999.

Figure 2.5 Electricity generating capacity by primary source in New England from 1995 to 2010 (Source: US Energy Information Agency, 2010)

New England is now dependent on natural gas imported from Canada and transmitted through Maine to meet their electricity needs, and the infrastructural changes that occurred in Maine were drivers of this transition.

More recent changes in the domestic and global energy markets have also shifted how natural gas is used as an energy source in Maine and New England (American Petroleum Institute, 2012). Considering the differences between natural gas and other fossil fuels, namely

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

petroleum and coal, helps to explain the market forces that have shaped the region’s current energy profile and driven changes in energy infrastructure.

Consumption of natural gas generates less carbon dioxide emissions than petroleum, and the two can be interchanged without extensive infrastructure changes (Committee on America's Energy Future, 2009). As a result, policies such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative have created an incentive for electricity generating facilities to shift their demand away from petroleum and towards natural gas (ISO New England, 2012a). Figure 2.6 shows the changes in carbon dioxide emissions produced by the electric power across New England, as well as the emissions contributed by each fuel source.

Figure 2.6 Total carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generating facilities across New England, separated by fuel source, between 1997 and 2010 (Source: US Energy Information Agency, 2010)

Total carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector across New England have decreased by 26% since 1997 (EIA, 2010c). This trend is partly attributable to the substitution of petroleum in favor of natural gas as a fuel source, as well as regulations for generating facilities that mandate new efficiency standards and emission control measures (ISO New England, 2012a). It is also worth noting that this decrease in emissions occurred over the same time period as a 28% increase in generation capacity across the regional system (EIA, 2010b). The transmission developments that increased regional supply of

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

natural gas allowed for both an increase in generating capacity as well as a transition away from petroleum and coal and therefore a decrease in emissions.

Changes in available supplies of fossil fuels have led to price fluctuations in the global energy market and subsequently created a shift in demand in the US. While global supplies of petroleum are projected to decline, current petroleum prices continue to rise (American Petroleum Institute, 2012). Meanwhile the development of previously unexploited domestic sources of natural gas has flooded the market with cheap fuel that can be transmitted efficiently and is not subjected to influence from the global market or dependent on foreign supplies (Energy Watch Group, 2007). Domestic production of natural gas reached an all- time high in 2011 and is projected to continue to increase (ISO New England, 2012a).

These changes in supply of fossil fuels are reflected by the prices of natural gas and petroleum delivered to consumers. Figure 2.7 shows the relative price changes of petroleum heating oil and natural gas heating fuel prices in the US starting in 1992. As of 2006, natural gas is the cheaper option for heating fuel (EIA, 2012b, 2012c).

Figure 2.7 Relative change in price of petroleum heating oil and natural gas in the US between 1992 and 2010 (Source: US Energy Information Agency, 2010)

This decrease in price, along with findings that suggest that the unexploited domestic supply of natural gas could meet domestic demand and allow the US to become a net exporter, have created motivation to invest in recovering natural gas from unconventional sources like gas

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

shales and offshore reserves (Coleman, 2011). However, because the growth in domestic production is a relatively new development it remains uncertain whether further investment is viable. A study by the Committee on America’s Energy Future (2009) found that if demand continues to grow moderately, and prices moved toward the low end of the predicted range, exploiting unconventional sources would not be economic. On the other hand, if prices moved toward the high end of the predicted range, there would likely be significant private investment put towards developing all possible sources of natural gas (Committee on America's Energy Future, 2009).

Additional uncertainty is presented by the need for new transmission infrastructure to accommodate a growth in production. Specifically, in the Appalachian Basin, which has been the center of the boom in domestic production, there has been a rise in new pipelines and interconnections to distribute the gas and capitalize on the growth in production (ISO New England, 2012).

A lack of natural gas transmission infrastructure in Maine has prevented consumers in the state from transitioning away from petroleum fuel oil in favor of natural gas as a heating fuel (ISO New England, 2012). Figure 2.8 shows the changes in consumption of natural gas in Maine, broken up by end use sector.

Figure 2.8 Consumption of natural gas in Maine by end use sector between 1997 and 2011 (Source: US Energy Information Agency, 2012)

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The electric power sector and the industrial sector have historically consumed the largest portions of the natural gas consumed in the state (EIA, 2012a). The development of the international pipelines in 1999 increased access to natural gas for regional electricity generators and industrial plants, but a broader distribution network servicing Maine’s geographically dispersed communities has yet to be developed (EIA, 2008). In 2011, only 5% of households in Maine used natural gas for home heating and 69% of households used petroleum fuel oil. Across the rest of the country, on average, 50% of households in each state used natural gas while only 7% used petroleum fuel oil (EIA, 2011). Implications

The overall energy landscape in Maine is in a transitional period. Maine's electricity transmission lines are in need of overall upgrades and there are significant constraints in the system that should be addressed. Natural gas companies are lining up to provide natural gas as an energy source both for heating and electricity generation throughout the state. This climate of development pressure from each of the drivers of energy infrastructure development has implications for Maine's energy future.

One of the most obvious limitations to the overall electricity transmission system is the aging power line network. The constraints associated with bottlenecks and congestions points in the system challenge the ability of Independent System Operators (ISOs) to balance supply and demand across the regional network (ISO New England, 2012c). In a study prepared for the New England Energy Alliance assessing Electricity Transmission Infrastructure in New England, six locations were identified as "congestion areas of concern". Two of these identified congestion points are the critical links connecting Maine to the rest of the regional transmission system: the New Brunswick to Maine interface and the Maine to New Hampshire interface (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007).

The transmission gap between northern and southern Maine also poses a challenge to regional electricity development. Wind energy developers have identified northern Maine as an area with significant wind development potential, but without the ability to connect into the regional network these projects are not economically viable (Emera, Bangor Hydro Electric Company, & National Grid Transmission Services, 2012).

As demonstrated by the gap in Maine’s transmission grid, the proximity of generation facilities to the "load-centers" where there is high electricity demand is important in regional efficiency. New power plants are often located in Maine because the resources are available, the land is cheap, and labor costs are low (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007). This abundance of electricity generated in Maine is not matched by local demand and transmission out of the state is limited by line inefficiencies. Connecticut and Massachusetts are the regional "load-centers" in New England, but since the connection interface linking

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Maine and New Hampshire is a congestion point, Maine's abundance of electricity cannot be delivered where needed (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007). These areas are weaknesses in the regional systems that have implications for the entire electric grid.

Regional policies and institutions also influence Maine’s energy markets. The other New England states have Renewable Portfolio Standards and RGGI standards to comply with, but have limited opportunities for in-state generation of renewable energy (Emera et al., 2012). These other New England states also contain the regional load-centers, with higher populations and energy demands. Maine is already a net electricity exporter, so the state could benefit from generating and exporting renewable energy to other states (Dickerson, 2012).

Given the increasing importance of natural gas as an electricity source in the state, the development of natural gas transmission infrastructure has implications for Maine’s energy future. Transitioning to natural gas for electricity generation has been effective in reducing the region’s dependence on petroleum and coal for electricity generation, but has not addressed the state's dependence on petroleum in the heating sector of the overall energy portfolio.

Natural gas can be easily and efficiently transported by pipeline and can be stored underground without significant losses in capacity (Mokhatab, 2012). These qualities make it well suited for a region with varying seasonal demand and geographically dispersed end- users. During summer months, when electricity demand peaks in southern New England, natural gas imported to Maine can be transmitted to the areas of high demand and used to generate electricity (Augustine, 2006).

During winter months, natural gas imported to Maine could be stored and used to supply the state's seasonally high demand for heating fuel. However, because the state lacks a transmission network to provide natural gas for household heating, it is not feasible to keep natural gas stored in Maine during the winter. Natural gas in Maine serves primarily as a source of electricity and does not play a significant role in Maine's heating energy demand.

The lack of transmission infrastructure leaves residential and commercial consumers unconnected to the major natural gas pipelines crossing the state. However, given the high demand for natural gas in Maine, both from electricity generating facilities looking to cut cost and reduce emissions, and from consumers who are still dependent on petroleum heating oil, expanding natural gas transmission networks will be an important topic in Maine’s energy future.

These pipeline issues are playing out throughout the state in very public, controversial debates. Two of these debates involve pipeline infrastructure, specifically the expansion of the natural gas pipeline network and the role Maine will play in transporting Canadian tar

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

sands oil. These two issues and their potential implications for the state are highlighted in the following case studies.

Case Study: Natural Gas Development in the Kennebec Valley

The opportunity to expand the natural gas transmission network in central Maine has led to a competition for state approval to construct new pipelines and fill the demand for cheaper heating fuel for Maine residents, businesses and industrial consumers. Maine Natural Gas has been operating in Maine since 1998 and currently provides natural gas to a handful of communities in Southern Maine (Maine Natural Gas, 2012). The company proposed extending its transmission network to Augusta in order to provide state buildings with natural gas. Maine Natural Gas also acquired a contract with the Maine General Medical Center to fill their heating needs for 10 years. With these anchor customers in Augusta, Maine Natural Gas has started moving forward with planning and siting for their pipeline expansion (Edwards, 2012).

But the prospect of capitalizing on an under-supplied market with high demand for cheap fuel has attracted another gas provider with a more ambitious plan and a larger financial investment. Summit Natural Gas, a nationally operating company, has proposed developing an extensive pipeline network that will serve approximately 15,000 consumers in the Kennebec Valley area. The expansion would make natural gas available to business and households from Augusta, to Waterville and up to Madison (Summit Utilities Inc., 2012).

Both companies see the current lack of infrastructure and the high demand for cheap heating fuel as a promising opportunity for development. If the state’s natural gas transmission network is expanded it is likely that the share of natural gas consumed (Figure 2.8) will shift so that the commercial and residential sectors make up a greater portion of the total share. The battle that has unfolded between the competing proposals has drawn significant media attention, and is a strong example of the public and private interests that are at stake in the current energy marketplace.

In the near future, Maine consumers with have the opportunity to connect to the natural gas network, but will face a dilemma between reducing their heating bills as well as their carbon footprints on one hand, and supporting the environmentally damaging practices involved in exploiting domestic sources of natural gas on the other.

Case Study: The Threat of a Tar Sands Pipeline in Maine

In 2008, the Canadian oil giant Enbridge started plans for a project called “Trailbreaker” that included the reversal of a multiple segments of a pipeline in Ontario and an existing pipeline between Portland and Montreal. The ultimate agenda of “Trailbreaker” was to provide tar sands oil from Alberta to large portions of the US. The project would transport the oil via a

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

trans-boundary pipeline which terminates in Casco Bay, Maine where the oil would be loaded onto tankers and shipped down the east coast (NRDC, 2012).

Currently, the Portland-Montreal Pipeline pumps crude oil from Casco Bay, through Maine and into Canada. As part of Enbridge’s plan, the Portland-Montreal pipeline would be expanded and its flow would be reversed to pump tar sands oil from Canada into Maine (NRCM, 2012b)

The original plan was extensive and ambitious, and was eventually derailed by unfavorable economic conditions. However, Enbridge has not given up its pursuit of expanding its network and a new route that includes Maine is still in the works (NRDC, 2012).

The proposed Line 9 Reversal Phase I would retrofit the 37 year old, 500 mile pipeline that is currently carrying conventional light oil from Sarnia, Ontario to a refinery in Montreal, Quebec (Enbridge Inc., 2012). When Phase I is complete, Enbridge will focus on their plan to reverse the Portland-Montreal Pipeline to transport this oil into Maine (NRCM, 2012b).

The transmission of tar sands oil raises a number of environmental concerns that ought to be considered as infrastructure development is pursued. This combustible fuel product called bitumen is nearly solid at room temperature. In order to pump it through a pipeline it must be diluted and mixed with other liquid petroleum products. Diluted bitumen is viscous, abrasive, hot, and acidic - qualities that dramatically increase the corrosion rate of a pipeline (Woynillowicz, 2005). In the event of a spill, the bitumen separates from the lighter petroleum products and sinks to the lowest point where it sticks and starts to solidify (NRDC, 2012).

These characteristics make tar sands oil dangerous, especially since the Portland-Montreal Pipeline crosses some of the state's greatest natural resources: our pristine lakes and healthy rivers (Portland Water District, 2012). The Portland-Montreal Pipeline currently crosses both the Androscoggin Crooked Rivers and the Sebago Lake watershed. These water bodies provide valuable services to the people of Maine (NRCM, 2012b; Portland Water District, 2012). Under Enbridge's proposal, the current pipeline flow would be reversed to carry exported oil from Canada to tankers in Casco Bay, Portland.

Critics of the project are concerned with the possibilities of pipeline corrosion, damages to Maine's environment from oil leaks, and the risks of spills from the oil tankers in Casco Bay (NRDC, 2012). Environmental advocacy groups like the Natural Resource Council of Maine, Environment Maine, and 350 Maine will play a key role in addressing these concerns.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Scenarios

Based on our evaluation of the current state of energy infrastructure in Maine as well as some of the prospects for development on the horizon, we considered three possible scenarios for the development of Maine’s energy infrastructure. While the future is largely uncertain, these scenarios present some potential implications of three different paths of energy infrastructure development.

Large-scale natural gas expansion, limited opportunity for renewable energy

If the natural gas pipeline expansion proposed by Summit Natural Gas were given state approval, the company would deliver large-scale, profit-driven investment to Maine’s energy infrastructure. The natural gas pipeline network would extend into Central Maine and consumers would have to option to switch to natural gas for home heating. Summit Natural Gas would build a customer base across the state in residential, commercial and industrial sectors. The pipeline network would continue to expand and Maine would transition to depend primarily on natural gas as the source of heating fuel, following national trends.

The Portland Natural Gas Transmission System and the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline would continue to pump natural gas into and through Maine, but most of the capacity they delivered would be devoted to serving the region’s growing electricity needs. The increased demand for natural gas would be met by domestic sources of natural gas. These sources have been increasing in recent years.

The increase in demand for domestically produced natural gas would encourage further development of unconventional sources of natural gas in areas like the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian Basin. Hydraulic-fracturing, the method used to extract natural gas that is locked in underground rock formations has environmental risks for water and soil quality, as well as potential to create unpredictable seismicity and habitat degradation (Coleman, 2011). Stricter environmental regulations would likely be imposed as the impacts of hydraulic- fracturing become more apparent. This would ultimately increase the cost of producing natural gas from unconventional sources (Committee on America's Energy Future, 2009).

Additionally, if domestic sources are developed extensively, it is predicated that the US will become a net exporter of natural gas, and the fuel would be subjected to fluctuations in the global market. Exporting natural gas would likely increase the price at the cost of consumers while big energy companies see growing profits (Committee on America's Energy Future, 2009) .

Finally, increasing dependence on natural gas, both from domestic and international sources, perpetuates the emissions of carbon dioxide as well as diverts investments away from increasing renewable capacity and therefore is not part of a sustainable long term agenda.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

This emphasis on natural gas over renewable development discourages large-scale electricity transmission projects which would increase opportunities for renewable energy development in rural regions of the state. More electricity generating plants would convert to natural gas, and the added incentive of connecting renewable projects would no longer drive electricity transmission upgrades.

Small-scale natural gas expansion, renewable energy encouraged

If the natural gas pipeline expansion proposed by Maine Natural Gas is given state approval and the company extends its network to Augusta, natural gas would be provided to state buildings and the MaineGeneral Medical Center. The state would see moderate economic growth as the project is carried out and small groups of consumers would gain access to cheaper heating fuel.

Additionally, if state electricity utilities invest in connecting the transmission gap between northern and southern Maine there could be significant opportunities for rural renewable energy projects to develop. If the project used a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission line to connect the two grids, it would increase regional efficiency, reliability, and security and allow electricity to flow efficiently throughout.

After addressing the transmission challenges in Maine’s electricity grid, renewable energy projects would become economically viable. Wind development would increase in northern Maine, where population is sparsely distributed and siting conflicts are much less of a challenge. Maine’s offshore wind development projects and tidal energy development could also be easily connected to this upgraded system. A boost of renewable energy into the ISO- New England grid would allow other New England states to meet their Renewable Portfolio Standard commitments and potentially even increase their renewable targets. Providing renewable energy to the grid could generate a significant amount of revenue for Maine, especially since the other New England states would pay additional fees for the renewable energy credits.

Successful transmission upgrade projects might generate demand for a more extensive electricity grid instead of increasing the natural gas pipeline network. With natural gas projects, the state might face an unpredictable regulatory framework as environmental regulations on domestic production of natural gas and economic volatility in the emerging natural gas market. Taking these conditions into consideration, Maine might deem natural gas expansion too economically and environmentally risky.

However, the possibility of transitioning away from petroleum-based heat sources and towards natural gas would likely remain on the table. Natural gas has the benefit of reducing Maine's heating costs and greenhouse gas emissions, making it a lucrative option. If increasing pipeline capacity were limited, the demand for natural gas for heating fuel would

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

have to be met by a surplus in capacity left by the electricity generating facilities replaced by the new in-state producers of renewable energy. If Maine and New England started to fill more of their electricity needs with renewable sources, generating facilities that once consumed natural gas could be decommissioned. The excess natural gas could be re-routed once it reached the distribution center in Southern Maine and pumped into a smaller network of pipelines to serve heating needs in the state.

If renewable sources of electricity increase, Maine could continue to develop natural gas infrastructure but focus more on developing a network to serve heating needs than increasing electricity generation from natural gas. Increasing the share of natural gas in Maine’s heating portfolio would reduce Maine’s dependence on petroleum and significantly lower average energy costs to consumers and reduce Maine’s emissions substantially.

Staying the course

If Maine rejected both proposals to expand natural gas transmission networks and continued to receive natural gas imports from Canada, the energy picture would remain much like it is today. The growing electricity demands in New England and Maine would be served in part by the natural gas transmitted through Maine, but there would be no change in the installed pipeline capacity.

Renewable energy projects would be developed where they are determined to be convenient or economically viable. Because Maine already meets its Renewable Portfolio Standard, it does not have a pressing need to develop more renewable energy projects. Therefore, the state government would continue along the same energy policies and not undertake any new initiatives to expedite renewable permitting or provide additional incentives.

Under this scenario, Maine’s electricity transmission network would be incrementally upgraded in the areas of greatest need. No large-scale infrastructure projects would be developed, and the gap between northern and southern Maine’s transmission grids would remain a challenge. Old electricity generating facilities would be phased out naturally, while facilities still burning petroleum might continue to slowly transition to natural gas. New, industry-implemented efficiency measures may be adopted gradually to keep costs down and ensure compliance with RGGI. Recommendations

Improvements to Maine’s electricity transmission network would benefit both regional electricity stability and support natural gas development in the state. Continually assessing and updating the transmission system will help increase power reliability and reduce congestion problems, lower electricity prices by opening up the market to fair competition,

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

and provide increased opportunities to incorporate renewable energy sources (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007).

Electricity utilities should coordinate and invest in connecting the gap between Northern and Southern Maine. Sparsely populated rural areas have been identified as key development opportunities by wind companies, but must have the ability to connect to the regional grid to be economically viable (Emera et al., 2012). Connecting these two disjointed grids would also alleviate a bottleneck in the system where power from New Brunswick meets the distribution center in Orrington, ME and gets distributed into the Maine transmission system (Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis, 2007).

All major electricity development projects (including the connection between northern and southern Maine) should focus on using high voltage and efficient power lines and co-locating their projects with other utility corridors in order to address the problems with Maine’s transmission system. In 2011, the Maine state legislature passed “The Act Regarding Energy Infrastructure Development”, which designates land along the I-95 and I-295 highways for underground energy transmission infrastructure (Stone, 2012). Future projects should take advantage of this law and co-locate projects to reduce environmental and aesthetic impacts of typical energy infrastructure projects and improve the efficiency of the regional system.

In addition to addressing electricity transmission challenges, utility companies in Maine should continue to incorporate natural gas as a transition fuel in their path towards a more sustainable energy future. Natural gas allows electricity generating facilities to stop burning petroleum and coal, which will reduce their carbon emissions in the short term and allow for more flexibility in the long term (Committee on America’s Energy Future, 2009).

We recommend a moderate and incremental development plan for expanding the natural gas transmission network into central Maine. Visions like the one proposed by Maine Natural Gas, the smaller of the two competing plans, commit to a slower adoption of natural gas as a heating fuel and provide more security in a volatile market. As domestic natural gas continues to develop there is potential for high price fluctuations which could make large and hasty investment in Maine’s transmission network a risky move (ISO New England, 2012a).

In addition to infrastructure changes, Maine should continue to support federal, state, and regional programs encouraging appropriate infrastructure developments that shift towards sustainability. In Maine, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) generates about $7 million per year from RGGI auctions, and the revenue is invested in energy efficiency projects throughout the state (Tietenberg, 2012). Maine has a strong Renewable Portfolio Standard, but could increase its goal if appropriate infrastructure upgrades allow for increased renewable energy generation.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Maine's congressional delegation should work to continue the federal Renewable Production Tax Credit to support renewable energy development in Maine. These credits make renewable sources of electricity more competitive with traditional carbon intensive sources of energy (Kearns, 2012). Additionally, supporting renewable energy projects helps bring more jobs to the state and move Maine towards energy independence. Energy independence would cushion consumers from fluctuating oil and gas markets and save money on energy bills (Committee on America's Energy Future, 2009).

Maine is already a net exporter of electricity, but through these recommended transmission upgrades and continued state support for programs like RPS and RGGI, the state could derive significant benefits from selling renewable electricity to other states in the region. Other New England states are committed to Renewable Portfolio Standards and RGGI goals, but must rely on imported clean energy to meet their criteria (Dickerson, 2012). Maine could support these states and increase its influence in the New England electricity market.

Transmission development should not be based exclusively on the potential for economic growth and rapid expansion. Instead, Maine should implement collaborative development that considers a full range of present and future stakeholder concerns. All infrastructure changes in Maine ought to be considered within a long-term vision of developing diverse and local energy sources.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Works Cited 350 Maine. (2012). So what is 350 all about. 350 Maine: from http://350maine.org/. American Petroleum Institute. (2012). 2012 Energy in Charts. American Petroleum Institute: from www.api.org. Coleman, J. R. M., Troy Cook, Ronald Charpentier, Mark Kirschbaum, Timothy Klett, Richard Pollastro, and Christopher Schenk. (2011). Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Devonian Marcellus Shale of the Appalachian Basin Province (Vol. 2011-3092). US Geological Survey Fact Sheet. Committee on America's Energy Future. (2009). America's Energy Future: Technology and Transformation. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. DEP. (2011a). About the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Maine Department of Environmental Protection: from http://www.maine.gov/dep/. DEP. (2011b). Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA). Maine Department of Environmental Protection: from http://www.maine.gov/dep/. Dickerson, C. M. (2012). Energy in Maine (February 2012 ed.). Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, University of Maine: from http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/. DSIRE. (2012). Maine Incentives/Policies for Renewables & Efficiency. Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency: from http://www.dsireusa.org. Edwards, K. (2012). MaineGeneral signs 10-year deal with Maine Natural Gas for new hospital heating. October 30, 2012: Morning Sentinel. Efficiency Maine. (2012). About Efficiency Maine. Efficiency Maine: from http://www.efficiencymaine.com/. EIA. (2008). Natural Gas Pipelines in the Northeast Region. US Energy Information Administration: from http://www.eia.gov. EIA. (2010a). International & Interstate Movements of Natural Gas by State. US Energy Information Administration: from www.eia.gov. EIA. (2010b). State Electricity Profiles 2010: Electric Power Industry Capability by Primary Energy Source, 1990 Through 2010. US Energy Information Administration: from www.eia.gov. EIA. (2010c). State Electricity Profiles 2010: Electric Power Industry Emissions Estimates, 1990 Through 2010. US Energy Information Administration: from www.eia.gov. EIA. (2011). Maine State Profile and Energy Estimates: Home Heating. US Energy Information Administration: from www.eia.gov. EIA. (2012a). Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. US Energy Information Administration: from www.eia.gov. EIA. (2012b). Natural Gas Prices. US Energy Information Administration: from www.eia.gov. EIA. (2012c). Weekly Heating Oil & Propane Prices. US Energy Information Administration: from www.eia.gov. Emera, Bangor Hydro Electric Company, & National Grid Transmission Services. (2012). Letter of Interest to Construct and Operate a High Voltage Direct Current Underground Transmission Line within the Interstate 95/295 Energy Infrastructure Corridor Northeast Energy Link. Enbridge Inc. (2012). Line 9 Reversal Phase I Project Overview: from www.enbridge.com.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Energy Watch Group. (2007). Crude Oil: The supply outlook: from www.energywatchgroup.org. Environment Maine Research & Policy Center. (2011). Getting Off Oil: A 50-State Roadmap for Curbing Our Dependence on Petroleum. Environment Maine: from http://www.environmentmaine.org. EPA. (2012a). EPA's Response to the Enbridge Oil Spill. US Environmental Protection Agency: from www.epa.gov. EPA. (2012b). Order for Removal Under Section 311c of the Clean Water Act. US Environmental Protection Agency: from www.epa.gov. EPA. (2012c). Our Mission and What We Do. United States Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. FERC. (2012). What FERC Does. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: from http://www.ferc.gov. Fletcher, K. C. (2012). Maine Energy Action Plan (Vol. 2012). Governor's Energy Office: from http://maine.gov/energy/. Graff, S. (2010). Energy Secretary Hails University of Maine's Wind Research. June 16, 2010: US Department of Energy from http://energy.gov. ISO New England. (2012a). 2012 Regional System Plan: from www.iso-ne.com. ISO New England. (2012b). Company Overview. ISO New England: from http://www.iso- ne.com/. ISO New England. (2012c). Reliable Electricity. ISO New England: from http://www.iso- ne.com/nwsiss/grid_mkts/elec_works/oview_brochure.pdf. Livesay, N. (2012, October 23, 2012). Regional and Statewide Planning. Paper presented at the GrowSmart Maine Summit 2012, Augusta, ME. Maine Historical Society. (2010). Nuclear Energy for Maine. National Endowment for the Humanities: from http://www.mainememory.net/. Maine Natural Gas. (2012). About Our Company: from www.mainenaturalgas.com. Maine Public Service Company. (2007). FERC Order No. 890: Strawman Proposal for Compliance with the Nine Planning Principles: Maine Public Service Company. MaineASCE. (2008). Report Card for Maine's Infrastructure. Falmouth, Maine: Maine Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Maritime and Northeast Pipeline. (2009). Natural Gas. Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline. (2009). Natural Gas. Miller, E. (2008). Stronger Together: A Directory of Maine's Cooperative Economy: Cooperative Maine. National Science Foundation. (2012). Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Board. NMISA. (2012). NMISA. from http://www.nmisa.com/ NRCM. (2012a). Dirty Fuels: Coal, Oil, Tar Sands, Fossil Fuels. from http://www.nrcm.org NRCM. (2012b). Dirty Fuels: Tar Sands Oil: Natural Resource Council of Maine. NRDC. (2012). Going in Reverse: The Tar Sands Threat to Central Canada and New England: Natural Resource Defense Council. Polestar Communications & Strategic Analysis. (2007). Electricity Transmission Infrastructure Development in New England: Value Through Reliability, Economic and Environmental Benefits: The New England Energy Alliance.

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Portland Natural Gas Transmission System. (2000). Pipeline Information. Retrieved October 10, 2012 Portland Water District. (2012). Watershed Protection. www.pwd.org. PUC. (1997). Market Power Study Final Report. Maine Public Utilities Commission: from http://www.maine.gov/ag/dynld/documents/Mccoy.pdf. PUC. (2008a). About MPUC. Maine Public Utilities Commission: from http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/. PUC. (2008b). Natural Gas Distributors. Maine Public Utilities Commission: from http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/. PUC. (2008c). Regulated Utilities: Electric Companies. Maine Public Utilities Commission: from http://www.maine.gov/mpuc. RGGI Inc. (2012a). About the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). New York, NY: RGGI, Inc. RGGI Inc. (2012b). RGGI Benefits: Maine. from http://www.rggi.org/ Smith, L. (1951). The power policy of Maine. Berkeley: University of California Press. Stone, M. (2012). State moves to open I-95, I-295 corridors to energy development. October 9, 2012: Bangor Daily News. Summit Utilities Inc. (2012). Summit Natural Gas of Maine: from www.summitmaine.com. Turkel, T. (2012a). Maine key to new regional powerhouse. October 25, 2012: Portland Press Herald. Turkel, T. (2012b). New England power grid upgrade leads to higher electricity bills. July 23, 2012: Kennebec Journal. US Army Corps of Engineers. (2012). Environmental Program. Retrieved November 5, 2012, from http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Environmental.aspx US DOE. (2012). Our Mission: United States Department of Energy. Wolfson, R. (2008). Energy, environment, and climate (1st ed.). New York, N.Y.: W. W. Norton & Company. Woynillowicz, D. (2005). Oil Sands Fever: The environmental implications of Canada's oil sands rush: The Pembina Institute. Yin, H., & Powers, N. (2010). Do state renewable portfolio standards promote in-state renewable generationʔ. Energy Policy, 38(2), 1140-1149. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.067

Personal Communications Matte Kearns, First Wind, Vice President Development Northeast Tom Tietenberg, Mitchell Family Professor of Economics, Colby College

Dylan Voorhees, Clean Energy Project Director, Natural Resources Council of Maine

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The State of Industrial Hazardous Waste in Maine By Lindsay Garrard and Siya Hegde Executive Summary The State of Industrial Hazardous Waste in Maine is the third chapter comprising The State of Maine’s Environment 2012. This report has been produced collectively by Environmental Policy students in the Environmental Studies Program at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. This is the seventh State of Maine’s Environment report published since 2004.

Hazardous waste in Maine is regulated throughout the processes of generation, transportation, and disposal. The majority of the state’s hazardous waste is generated by military facilities, particularly the US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery. Among the most common types of hazardous waste are lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which pose significant human health risks. Although most of Maine’s hazardous waste is generated by large industrial corporations, the small businesses generating hazardous waste far outnumber them. Maine exports 11 times more hazardous waste than it imports. While the state does not contain any hazardous waste disposal facilities of its own, it does have three treatment and storage facilities.

Maine excels in waste product stewardship initiatives, with its product stewardship and E- waste recycling laws serving as models for the nation. Though Maine handles and disposes of relatively little to no hazardous waste, we recommend that Maine incentivizes industrial hazardous waste reduction and expands its Green Certification Program to include larger corporations producing greater quantities of hazardous waste. Introduction Over the last century, hazardous waste has been an unfortunate result of US economic expansion (Flowers & Linderman, 2003). The US generates the most hazardous waste in the world: in 2009, the total amount generated reached nearly 71 billion pounds (Pohl, Tarkowski, Buczynska, Fay, & De Rosa, 2008). The bulk of this waste comes from industrial activity. There are significant environmental implications associated with solid municipal, radioactive, agricultural, and household hazardous waste. For the purpose of this study, however, we exclusively examine industrial hazardous waste. While there are economic benefits associated with electronic, agricultural, and bio-based products generated by industries, there are negative externalities that result from hazardous waste production (Jensen, 2012). As more industrial hazardous waste is generated nationwide, Americans are left with fewer suitable disposal sites to choose from. This has consequently resulted in the

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

transportation of about 95% of hazardous waste across state and national boundaries from its initial source (Jensen, 2012).

Across the US, the waste generated by industries results in detrimental human health and environmental impacts if it is left unregulated (Bowen, 1998). Exposure to hazardous materials through improper disposal or unplanned releases is linked to significant health effects including the impairment of chromosomal, endocrinal, and nervous system function, as well as the onset of cancer (Smith, 2013). Although national hazardous waste figures are inexact, estimates indicate that about 94% of total waste generated is improperly handled, which magnifies the threat of potential exposure to humans and/or contamination of the environment (Smith, 2013). Oftentimes, metals such as lead, arsenic, or chromium, that are contained within wastes may leach out in the form of contaminated liquid and pollute ground water (US EPA, 2012d).

The risk of exposure to hazardous waste through its management processes prompted Congress to enact environmental laws to regulate waste disposal and treatment. Among the most salient of these laws are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) (Kraft, 2011). Due to the widespread adverse health impacts of hazardous waste exposure, industry and consumer compliance with hazardous waste regulations is imperative.

Definition of Hazardous Waste Hazardous waste is defined as waste that is potentially harmful to human and environmental health and can take the physical form of a solid, liquid, or gas (US EPA, 2012k). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies hazardous wastes by designated codes that specify their hazardous chemical properties (“characteristic wastes”) and source origin (“listed wastes”). Ignitable wastes are non-liquid characteristic wastes that vigorously burn upon ignition and have risks of creating a fire upon moisture absorption and high friction conditions. Corrosive wastes have the capacity to destroy metals or exposed body tissues (US EPA, 2012d). Reactive wastes can create hazardous fumes and have the potential to explode or react violently when exposed to water. Toxic wastes contain chemical substances that pose significant risks to humans when ingested or absorbed (US EPA, 2012d).

Hazardous wastes may also fall into categories that describe their sources: F-wastes, or non- specific sources, are generated by commerical or industrial processes; K-wastes are identified based on their association to specific industrial sources; U-listed (toxic hazardous) and P- listed (acutely hazardous) waste categories consist of discarded commerical chemical products, such as pharmaceuticals or pesticides (US EPA, 2012p).

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Historical Context At the turn of the 20th century, when urban populations grew across the US, the majority of cities had developed their own waste collection and management systems (Tammemagi, 1999). According to a review by Robinson (1986), the US federal government, prior to the 1970s, funneled resources entirely into solid waste management by awarding states planning grants to manage solid municipal waste and to research and develop resource recovery facilities. Although 25 states managed hazardous waste as of 1975, their programs were severely understaffed and varied in their definitions of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste remained unregulated until a series of hearings held by the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce communicated to the general public the adverse health effects caused by the improper disposal of hazardous waste. The Committee attained this information through unofficial EPA damage assessment reports and consequently acknowledged the need for federal hazardous waste regulation (Robinson, 1986).

As the “Environmental Decade,” the 1970s was a period of groundbreaking federal legislation that was enacted after a wave of public concern with the country’s air, water, and soil pollution and lack of corporate accountability (Kraft, 2011). It was only then that Congress enacted policies that considered addressing the national problems associated with hazardous waste management. On October 21, 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was passed as the first law to establish federal regulation of hazardous waste. RCRA established a “cradle-to-grave” management system of waste from initial generation to ultimate disposal (US EPA, 2012n).

Abandoned, accidentally spilled, or improperly disposed hazardous waste was brought to national attention through the Love Canal tragedy in Niagara Falls, New York. In 1942, the Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation purchased the unfinished Love Canal site from the Niagara Power and Development Company to use as a landfill for its industrial waste (Phillips, Hung, & Bosela, 2007). By the end of 1953, Hooker had dumped 21,800 tons of industrial wastes such as pesticide residues, process slurries, and waste solvents – including at least 12 known carcinogens – into the Love Canal basin (Phillips et al., 2007). Hooker then proceeded to sell the land to the town’s Board of Education as a construction site for a school and surrounding homes. Two decades later, many residents on nearby or adjacent properties began to suffer grave health effects, such as spontaneous abortions and congenital malformations, and in 1978, a federal state of emergency was declared (Phillips et al., 2007). Love Canal proved to be among the nation’s most egregious examples of improper and irresponsible disposal of highly toxic waste. The event shed light on the issues of hazardous waste management and environmental justice and stimulated the passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. Under CERCLA, sites that are placed on the National Priority List (NPL) are

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

recognized as hazardous waste sites that are either abandoned or in critical need of long-term remedial action. The policy also established a trust known as Superfund that provided financial means of cleaning up sites when responsible corporations could not be identified (US EPA, 2012c).

Goals and Objectives This chapter examines the management of Maine’s industrial hazardous waste as it passes through the three major stages of the waste cycle: generation, transport, and disposal. We first outline influential laws, institutions, and stakeholders. We then assess major trends and the human health, economic, and environmental implications of our findings. Finally, we conclude with our major findings, create possible future scenarios, and provide policy recommendations. Methods We reviewed primary literature that consisted of documents accessed through Academic Search Premier, the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), Google Scholar, the Colby College Library, and the Interlibrary Loan Network.

We communicated with Abigail King, a policy advocate working for the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM). She directed us to documents published by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) that outlined Maine’s hazardous waste legislation and initiatives. We reviewed some of the MDEP’s past biennial reports on the state’s hazardous waste activities and corresponded with the director of the Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management, Ronald Dyer. He directed us to specialists Cherrie Plummer and Kevin Jenssen, who sent us waste import/export, shipping and handling, listed codes, generation trends, generator facility, and remediation data. Hazardous waste data for 2012 manifests was compiled up until July, so we chose to use manifest data from 2011 to provide a more accurate assessment of the state of Maine’s industrial hazardous waste.

We used data from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to access a list of human health effects from hazardous waste exposure and a list of waste generator facilities and waste quantities. We used data from the Maine Office of Geographic Information System (MeOGIS) to map New England state boundaries, 2010 population census blocks, and county distribution with Geographic Information System (GIS) software. With guidance from Colby College’s GIS specialist, Dr. Manuel Gimond, we designed two maps displaying the distribution of Maine’s National Priority List (NPL) sites and 50 large hazardous waste generator facilities.

100

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Laws and Institutions Laws concerning the state of hazardous waste in Maine aim to protect the health of the public and environment. Federal statutes such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) relate to the generation and handling of hazardous waste and have broadened the scope of liability for resulting adverse health effects (Hall, 1983). Such laws mandate that states abide by standard regulations and provide states with a model from which they can base their own policies. The following sections summarize select federal and state laws pertaining to industrial hazardous waste regulation.

Federal Legislation Related to Hazardous Waste We have identified seven influential federal laws that regulate industrial hazardous waste.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (1975) The 1975 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) was the first law to protect individuals against risks to their property and health that may result from the transportation of commercial hazardous materials (US DOE, 2012). The HMTA mandated the classification of hazardous materials (including wastes) by specifying packaging and labeling information. Carriers and shippers of hazardous wastes generated by Department of Energy-designated facilities are expected to obtain an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) waste identification number and handle waste discharges (US DOE, 2012).

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976 with the intention of protecting human and environmental health from the adverse effects of hazardous waste. Along with regulating the management activities of hazardous waste (Subtitle C), RCRA also regulates municipal solid waste (Subtitle D) and chemically contaminated storage tanks (US EPA, 2012n). Under RCRA, hazardous wastes are defined as listed, characteristic, universal, or mixed, and there are certain provisions established to control their cleanup. The EPA is authorized to implement RCRA programs that grant permits to waste facilities and has successfully implemented RCRA provisions within 46 states (US EPA, 2012a). These states have EPA-approved hazardous waste programs and are authorized to implement them directly. The federal government oversees states without approved hazardous waste programs.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (1980) The 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund, was established to clean up waste sites that release or have the potential to release hazardous substances. Under CERCLA, removal actions attempt to

101

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

reduce or eliminate any listed hazardous waste and toxic chemicals that threaten human or environmental health (US EPA, 2012c). Remedial actions, resulting from preliminary assessments and site inspections, are undertaken to ensure a more permanent eradication of hazardous substance threats. Additionally, CERCLA is a reporting act in that it identifies parties responsible for hazardous releases and requires that they provide monetary compensation for their actions (US EPA, 2012c).

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (1984) The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) added stricter provisions to RCRA and strengthened EPA standards to better protect human health and the environment. Standards were issued for generators based on the amount of hazardous waste they produced. Section 3004 created the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program, which comprises three major stipulations: a) the Disposal Prohibition, which states that treatment standards devised for specific hazardous wastes must be met prior to land disposal; b) the Dilution Prohibition, which requires that hazardous waste be properly treated and not simply diluted; and c) the Storage Prohibition, which states that waste must be treated and may not be stored indefinitely to avoid treatment. The restrictions further prohibit the placement of bulk or non- containerized liquid hazardous waste in a landfill and prohibit the disposal of non-hazardous liquid waste in any hazardous waste landfill. Furthermore, they require that each new landfill or surface impoundment have at least two liners and a leachate collection system as well as a groundwater monitoring system, and they regulate facilities that use hazardous waste as fuel or to produce fuel. The ultimate goal of these provisions was to phase out land disposal of hazardous waste (US EPA, 2012o). Other notable requirements include a ban on the underground injection of hazardous waste into or above any formation within a quarter mile of a drinking water well and regulations addressing the leakage of underground storage tanks (US EPA, 2012o).

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1986) Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) authorized the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The EPCRA was enacted to increase transparency between manufacturers and the public by informing the latter of hazardous substance threats (US EPA, 2012g). The EPCRA established the “community right to know requirements” which mandated that manufacturing facilities involved in the processing or storage of hazardous chemicals supply state and local officials with Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) describing the chemicals’ health effects (42 U.S.C. Chapter 16 § 311-12). Congress has required each state to establish its own State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) in order to inform citizens about substance releases and develop emergency evacuation procedures (SERC, 2012).

102

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (1990) The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA) of 1990 amended the 1975 HMTA through provisions to create uniformity among state and local highway transport regulations. It also devised criteria for the issuance of federal permits to motor carriers of hazardous materials (US DOE, 2012). Workers involved with the transport of hazardous materials are mandated to undergo training for handling, communicating, and classifying waste information. Under the HMTUSA, the Secretary of Transportation continues to be the primary enforcement agent for designating materials as hazardous based on their inherent properties and risks upon exposure (US DOE, 2012).

Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (2012) In October 2012, President Obama signed the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act. The Act is an amendment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 that RCRA amended in 1976. A manifest is an official paper document that accompanies every hazardous waste shipment from its point of generation to its designated disposal location. An electronic manifest system will increase efficiency in relaying hazardous waste disposal and shipment information. According to Jacobs (2012), the electronic manifest system will significantly alter the way hazardous waste is tracked by the EPA (Jacobs, 2012). The EPA will be authorized to establish a new electronic manifest system within three years that will ease the costliness of federal regulatory processes.

103

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Table 3.1 Selected federal laws relating to hazardous waste in Maine Law Year Description Location Regulates the labeling, packaging, and spill reporting provisions of Hazardous Materials commercial hazardous and USC Title 49 Chapter Transportation Act 1975 radioactive materials in transit; 51 § 5101-28 (HMTA) carriers and shippers must certify their compliance with Department of Transportation statute. Regulates the generation, Resource Conservation transportation, storage, and disposal USC Title 42 Chapter and Recovery Act 1976 of hazardous waste materials, and 82 § 6901-91 (RCRA) authorizes the EPA to conduct waste inspections. Identifies substances as being Comprehensive hazardous or potentially hazardous. It Environmental also addresses abandoned or closed USC Title 42 Chapter Response, 1980 waste sites and provides trust funds 103 § 9601-75 Compensation, and for their cleanup, ensuring that Liability Act (CERCLA) responsible parties are held accountable for releases. Amended RCRA to create stricter standards to minimize hazardous Hazardous and Solid waste generation, phasing out land USC Title 42 Chapter Waste Amendments 1984 disposal of hazardous waste, and 82 § 6928a (HSWA) providing corrective action for unplanned releases. Superfund Establishes that all federal, state, and USC Title 42 Chapter Amendments and local stakeholders have the right to 1986 116 § 301-304 and Reauthorization Act access information about the use and 311-313 (SARA) release of hazardous substances. Amended HMTA by mandating the training of workers dealing with Hazardous Materials commercial hazardous waste and USC Title 49 Chapter Transportation Uniform 1990 material transportation, and 51 § 5101-5127 Safety Act (HMTUSA) strengthened packaging regulations; unified state and local highway transport regulations Directs the EPA to establish an Hazardous Waste electronic manifest system of tracking Electronic Manifest hazardous wastes, and enables USC Title 42 Chapter 2012 Establishment Act (S. generator, shipment, treatment, 82 § 3024 710) storage, and disposal facilities to access it as needed

104

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

State Legislation Related to Hazardous Waste Maine laws related to industrial hazardous waste build on federal regulations established under RCRA. The state is permitted to create its own provisions provided that the provisions are as stringent as the federal ones.

Maine Hazardous Waste, Septage and Solid Waste Management Act (1979) Enacted in 1979, the Maine Hazardous Waste, Septage and Solid Waste Management Act became the first state law in Maine to address safe waste management and transportation practices. In its series of rules entitled, “Maine Hazardous Waste Management Regulations,” the law mandates the licensing of waste transporters across state borders and prohibits the operation of waste facilities without permits (ECAR, 2010). The Act also intended to coordinate a statewide waste reduction and recycling program that includes the reuse of waste in industries and households throughout Maine (MRS Title 38 § 2101 and 1302).

Electronic Waste (E-Waste) Law (2004) Maine’s E-waste law regulates household electronic products such as televisions and computer monitors. Many of these devices contain toxic substances such as heavy metals and PVC plastics that are released into the environment either directly or indirectly, posing significant hazards to human health and the environment (MDEP, 2012d). The E-waste Law establishes a statewide comprehensive electronics recycling system in which manufacturers assume the costs of e-waste recycling, and households, public schools, small businesses, and nonprofits are responsible for bringing their e-waste to a collection site or event. The law also restricts retailers from selling covered electronic devices in Maine unless a) the manufacturer is in compliance with the E-waste Law and b) the product brand is registered with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) (MRS Title 38 Chapter 16 § 1610).

Cell Phone Recycling Law (2007) The Cell Phone Recycling Law requires all cell phones to be recycled in Maine. Any retailer that sells cell phones must accept used cell phones from consumers at no cost and recycle, reuse, and/or dispose of them. All retailers must also post a prominent notice visible to the public that states, “We accept used cellular telephones at no charge.” Additionally, all cell phone service providers must report annually to the MDEP with the number of cell phones they have collected and how they were disposed of, reused, or recycled (MRS Title 38 Chapter 24 Subchapter 3 § 2143).

105

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Table 3.2 Maine laws relating to hazardous waste Law Year Description Location Authorizes the Maine Department of Maine Hazardous Environmental Protection to issue MRS Title 38 Chapters Waste, Septage and 1979 regulations for the transportation and 850-857 § 1273; 1281; Solid Waste safe management of hazardous 1301-1302; 1304 Management Act wastes within Maine Establishes comprehensive state electronics recycling system and divides product stewardship Maine Electronic Waste MRS Title 38 Chapter 2004 responsibilities among (E-Waste) Law 16 § 1610 manufacturers, consolidators, municipalities, and other relevant parties. Requires all retailers that sell cell phones to accept used cell phones to be recycled at no cost to the MRS Title 38 Chapter Cell Phone Recycling consumer and all cell phone service 2007 24 Subchapter 3 § Law providers to report annually to the 2143 DEP the number of phones collected and how they were disposed of, reused, or recycled. State Legislation Relating to Hazardous Waste Product Stewardship

Mercury-Added Products and Services Law (1999) The Mercury-Added Products and Services Law establishes a product stewardship program for mercury-added products that demands transparency from manufacturers. Manufacturers must provide written notice before adding mercury to products, disclose mercury content information to hospitals upon request, and properly label mercury-added products or they may not be sold in Maine. The law also contains restrictions on the manufacture, sale, and use of certain mercury-added products and prohibits the deliberate disposal of mercury-added products with other solid waste. Lastly, manufacturers of motor vehicles and thermostats with mercury-added components are responsible for managing the recycling, reuse, and disposal of their products (MRS Title 38 Chapter 16-B § 1661-72).

Maine Product Stewardship Law (2010) The Maine Product Stewardship Law, “An Act To Provide Leadership Regarding the Responsible Recycling of Consumer Products,” was the first law in the nation to create a framework for prioritizing and identifying hazardous products for product stewardship evaluation. This law expands on Maine’s existing product stewardship laws for mercury- containing products and electronic waste, which were devised product-by-product. The law allows the state to analyze and address other potentially problematic consumer products according to their degree of importance and concern. Under the law, the MDEP reviews existing Product Stewardship Programs (PSPs) and prioritizes them to identify candidate products. Once the MDEP nominates a candidate product for a PSP, stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input. From there, producers are responsible for the implementation of the PSP, which is pre-authorized by the Natural Resources Committee (NRCM, 2010).

106

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Table 3.3 Maine laws relating to product stewardship programs Law Year Description Location Restricts and/or bans the sale and distribution of certain mercury- added products in Maine. Contains provisions for the proper labeling Mercury-Added and recycling, reusing, and/or MRS Title 38 Chapter Products and Services 1999 disposal of mercury-containing 16-B § 1661-72 Law products and assigns product stewardship responsibilities to manufacturers of mercury-added thermostats and motor vehicle components. Establishes framework to identify hazardous products for new product stewardship programs. An Act To Provide Manufacturers of said products are Leadership Regarding responsible for covering the costs MRS Title 38 Chapter the 2010 of collecting, transporting, reusing, 18 § 1771-75 Responsible Recycling recycling, or disposing of of Consumer Products unwanted products. Expands on Maine’s existing product stewardship programs for e-waste and mercury-containing products. Stakeholders Primary stakeholders, such as federal governmental agencies and offices, are directly involved in hazardous waste management regulations, while secondary stakeholders, such as local non-profits and residents, are indirectly involved.

Federal Governmental Agencies The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary federal agency that administers federal hazardous waste laws. The EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment by ensuring that federal legislation is effectively enforced (US EPA, 2012r). The EPA develops national plans in response to human-environmental risks by drawing on credible and up-to-date scientific information accessible to all residents, businesses, and regional, state, and local governments (US EPA, 2012r). In terms of its efforts to mitigate the effects of hazardous waste, the EPA has recently launched a new initiative to safely dispose of used and recycled electronics (US EPA, 2012j). The EPA is responsible for presenting information about waste types, generators, transporters, treatment, storage, disposal, and recycling as well as implementing and enforcing federal hazardous waste laws.

The EPA’s Region 1 office oversees Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, which collectively make up New England (referred to as “Region 1”). The office attends to site clean-up projects, Superfund enforcement programs, recycling facilities, and current event news summaries regarding hazardous waste in New

107

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

England. It is a resource that provides up-to-date information regarding clean-up and reuse efforts in local communities (US EPA, 2012e).

Maine Department of Environmental Protection The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) manages the operation of state hazardous waste facilities. This agency regulates the generation, use, and disposal of both household and industrial hazardous waste. The MDEP aims to enhance the public’s right to utilize all state resources by making regulatory decisions to mitigate and control air, water, and land pollution (MDEP, 2012a). Since its establishment in 1972, the agency has developed three main bureaus to target high priority environmental programs: Air Quality, Water Quality, and Remediation and Waste Management. Published documents made available to the public through the MDEP’s database include reports on waste monitoring, solid and hazardous waste product stewardship and recycling programs, and waste management certification, licensing, and permit policies. Additional resources include biennial reports of hazardous waste activity, municipal landfill remediation programs, and legislative summaries pertaining to Maine’s environmental agendas.

Industrial Corporations Industrial hazardous waste is generated by the activities of manufacturing corporations and private businesses. The operation of these facilities is regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In order to generate hazardous waste legally, the facilities must obtain an official EPA identification number, comply with record-keeping and labeling standards, and submit biennial reports of the quantities of hazardous waste generated (Robinson, 1986). Corporations are sorted into two categories of hazardous waste generation: large quantity generators (LQGs), which produce at least 2,640 pounds per year, and small quantity generators (SQGs), which produce less than 2,640 pounds per year (MDEP, 2008). In Maine, LQGs include national corporations with branches across the country, such as Evonik Cyro Inc. and Texas Instruments Inc., as well as Maine-based corporations, such as Katahdin Analytical Services and Southern Maine Specialties.

Civil Society Organizations A number of civil society organizations (CSOs) are actively involved with environmental issues in Maine and have influenced the perspectives and decisions of state policy-makers through their advocacy efforts. The following groups are examples of CSOs that drive citizen education and social justice initiatives relating to hazardous waste.

Maine People’s Alliance Maine People’s Alliance (MPA) is a grassroots organization that provides community residents with a platform to voice and share their concerns about various social, environmental, and political issues. There are three organized chapters of the MPA, located

108

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

in Lewiston, Portland, and Bangor. The MPA leads a number of outreach initiatives that mobilize activists across the state. In 2010, a public hearing was held regarding the remediation of Maine’s largest mercury waste site in Orrington. As the MDEP continued its efforts to clean up the site, the MPA stepped in to advocate for “complete removal of the hazardous waste from the site as the only viable remediation option” (MPA, 2010). As an extension of this fight for a toxic-free environment, the MPA also works to hold polluting corporations accountable for their negative impacts on Maine’s human and environmental health.

Natural Resources Council of Maine The Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM), through statewide lobbying efforts and other advocacy projects, is instrumental in the passage of state legislation and has contributed significantly to the development of Maine’s environmental policies. One of its key initiatives is to promote a toxic-free Maine in which industrial practices dealing with mercury and recycling/disposal of products have become an issue of concern (NRCM, 2012a). The NRCM is at the forefront of promoting a sustainable product stewardship program, in which producers fund the recycling of their own products. The NRCM has also influenced legislation pertaining to the recycling of products with mercury, lead, and other hazardous chemicals (NRCM, 2012a).

Environmental Health Strategy Center The Environmental Health Strategy Center (EHSC) is a non-profit organization that works to reduce toxic substances in consumer products and waste streams. Initiatives include science- based advocacy and organized campaigns that aim to protect the health and wellbeing of Mainers. These efforts work to promote safer alternatives to hazardous substances and innovative policy solutions (EHSC, 2012).

Toxics Action Center The Toxics Action Center (TAC) is a regional grassroots organization that collaborates with hundreds of communities across New England to mitigate toxic pollution. It is involved in initiatives including the clean-up of hazardous waste sites and the reduction of industrial pollution (TAC, 2012). The TAC encourages the involvement of citizens who are directly affected by hazardous waste pollution by working with them to manage clean-up efforts. Since 1987, the TAC has rallied the support of over 625 New England communities through its public health campaign efforts (TAC, 2012). State of Industrial Hazardous Waste In order to evaluate the state of Maine’s industrial hazardous waste, we examined waste generation, transportation, and disposal activities and identified important explanatory factors driving overall trends.

109

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Generation Most of the hazardous waste generated in Maine comes from industrial sources. Generator facilities throughout the state that are licensed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) are responsible for the generation of Maine’s industrial hazardous waste. These facilities are regulated regardless of the volume of waste that they generate and are characteristically classified as being either large quantity generators (LQGs) or small quantity generators (SQGs). Maine, however, recognizes some facilities as SQG Pluses, which generate as much waste as an SQG and also accumulate up to 1,320 pounds of waste at any given time (MDEP, 2008). Overall, the majority of Maine’s hazardous waste comes from relatively few LQGs, and the quantity generated fluctuates annually.

The complete 2011 hazardous waste manifest data set includes both RCRA waste as well as remediation waste under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The remainder of hazardous waste includes abandoned or spilled wastes that are cleaned up under the provisions of CERCLA. Most of the waste that ultimately falls under the jurisdiction of CERCLA is generated from remediation projects at one of Maine’s 13 National Priority List (NPL) sites (Figure 3.1). These sites include military bases, private corporations, and municipal landfills (Appendix 3.1).

While thousands of NPL sites have been located and examined across the country, Maine currently has 13, three of which are federal facilities. Brunswick Naval Air Station, Loring Air Force Base, and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard are all military bases, while the remaining ten NPL sites consist of hazardous waste landfills, private corporations, waste oil facilities, and metal facilities. The Brunswick Naval Air Station was listed as an NPL site in July of 1987 and has since undergone numerous physical cleanup activities (US EPA, 2012b). Cleanup impact summaries from the EPA state that human exposures to hazardous contaminants at the station are under control (US EPA, 2012b). The Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, Maine was listed as an NPL site in February of 1990, and, similar to the Brunswick Naval Air Station, its cleanup initiatives have mitigated human exposures to hazardous contaminants (US EPA, 2012q). Lastly, the US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, which became an NPL site in May 1994, has completed early remedial action (US EPA, 2012s).

110

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 3.1 Distribution of National Priority List (NPL) sites in Maine (Source: US EPA, 2012i)

111

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Trends in Annual Waste Generation The total amount of hazardous waste generated in Maine includes manufacturing and other commercial activities, as well as remedial clean-up projects of Superfund and corrective action sites (MDEP, 2005). Thus, the amount of industrial hazardous waste varies from year to year depending on the number of remediation sites and the volume of waste cleaned up in each (MDEP, 2005).

In 2003, the state generated a record 36.8 million pounds of total hazardous waste, approximately 21 million pounds of which was due to the implementation of two corrective action and remediation projects (Figure 3.2; (MDEP, 2005). The first project site, the Eastland Woolen Mill in Corinna, which used benzene-chlorinated dye for woolen products, had about 14 million pounds of chlorobenzene-contaminated soil removed, while the second, the National Semiconductor in South Portland, had 6.7 million pounds of other solvent- contaminated soil removed (MDEP, 2005). This left nearly 16 million pounds of hazardous waste attributed to industrial sources of activity. The total hazardous waste generated then drops in quantity by 19 million pounds in 2004. There is an increase of 3.8% in total hazardous waste generated from 2004 to 2005.

There is a second peak in 2007 in which the state generated 24.4 million pounds of total hazardous waste. Of this amount, about 2 million pounds were lead-contaminated wastes removed from the US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, while about 3 million pounds were mercury-contaminated soils that were removed from the Holtrachem site in Orrington, which manufactured chlorine bleach, sodium hydroxide, and pesticides (Figure 3.2; MDEP, 2009; US EPA, 2012s).

As both peaks display, Maine generated relatively less hazardous waste from manufacturing and other commercial activities than it did from clean-up projects. This indicates that the majority of the hazardous waste generated in these years was from the implementation of clean-up projects that dealt with old hazardous waste instead of from the generation of new industrial hazardous waste. The total amount of hazardous waste generated has increased since 2009, with the second highest total of 27.8 million pounds generated in 2011 (Figure 3.2). This can be attributed to the continuation of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard’s large remediation projects that have been ongoing since 2010 (Plummer, pers. com.).

112

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 3.2 The growth of Maine’s total hazardous waste generation from 2003 to 2011 (Source: MDEP, 2011d)

The Diversity of Maine’s Industrial Sectors that Generate Hazardous Waste Maine’s economy has historically relied upon its timber, paper manufacturing, fishing, tourism, and military industries (Rose, 2004). In today’s economy, Mainers are consuming less in an effort to bring about stronger environmental outcomes (Huynh, 2009). As a result, the total amount of hazardous waste produced by the state’s consumer-based sectors, such as corporate manufacturing, retail, and professional services, comprises about 29% of total hazardous waste. This is collectively less than the 71% of hazardous waste produced by non- consumer based sectors, which includes military, educational, health, and public works facilities (Figure 3.3).

Today, the largest source of industrial hazardous waste in the state is the military, which generates about 43% of total hazardous waste (Figure 3.3). The US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard contributes about 92% of the state’s military industrial hazardous waste, which is equivalent to approximately 40% of the state’s total hazardous waste (Figure 3.3). At the shipyard, approximately 185 of the 278-acre plot is considered a “high-density industrial area,” and hazardous waste generation has occurred on 30 acres (US EPA, 2012s).

Educational facilities, on the other hand, are fewer in number throughout the state than corporations. They consist of secondary and higher secondary institutions, universities, and community colleges. Research facilities, such as Jackson Laboratories in Bar Harbor, are also included in this category, and many of the listed wastes they have generated are biomedical

113

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

equipment and chemicals used for testing. Nearly 23% of generated waste comes from state institutions, which include arts and recreational facilities (i.e., museums and parks), official municipal facilities, and public sites. Public works, which account for about 0.3% of hazardous waste generation, include designated public work departments and water supply facilities. Health institutions, which include hospitals and other medical and dental facilities, generate about 0.5% of hazardous waste.

Among the consumer-based industrial sectors in Maine, professional services, such as laundromats and auto repair shops, generate about 0.6% of hazardous waste. Transportation and retail are similar in their relative percentages of total hazardous waste generated at about 1% each. Transportation includes aviation and automobile facilities, while retailers mainly include supermarkets, wholesale clubs, and department stores.

Figure 3.3 Total percentage of hazardous waste generated by different industrial sectors in Maine (Source: MDEP, 2011d)

Hazardous Waste Classification in Maine The classification of hazardous waste in Maine falls primarily under federal jurisdiction, although there are some waste types that are state specific. In Maine, the waste type designated by the code M002 is polybrominated biphenyls (PCBs) with contaminant levels at or above 50 parts per million. According to the 2011 data manifest, they are recognized by

114

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Maine as a “listed” waste and constitute the bulk of the state’s generated waste at 26.2% of its total during the 2011 fiscal year. U- and P-wastes collectively comprise only about 1% of total generated hazardous waste.

D-wastes, which are about 72% of Maine’s hazardous waste, have been designated as metals or other toxic wastes. Among the most common metals found in generated waste are lead, arsenic, and chromium (Table 3.7).

As clarified in the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s (MDEP) Biennial Activities Report (2011): “many wastes can have more than one waste code to describe that waste.” For example, PCBs or metals can be assigned codes according to their source – specific or non-specific – and according to their chemical properties. Therefore, the total quantity of hazardous waste of each property or listed type as displayed in Figure 3.4 is only a minimum.

Figure 3.4 Total quantity of hazardous waste generated as classified by property or listed type in Maine (Source: MDEP, 2011d)

115

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Maine’s Hazardous Waste Generator Facilities Among the 50 largest currently active hazardous waste generators in Maine are the military, oil companies, schools, and technological service facilities (Appendix 3.4). These top hazardous waste generators, as shown in Figure 3.5, are all LQGs. They are more concentrated along Maine’s southern coast, especially in York and Cumberland counties, where there is a higher population density. Collectively, all of Maine’s LQGs produce nearly 97% of total industrial hazardous waste, while all SQGs produce only about 3%. There is a scarcity of generator facilities in Arookstook, Somerset, and Penobscot counties within Maine’s unorganized territory (UT), where there is neither urban economic activity nor industrial producing facilities. Although only the 50 largest hazardous waste generators are shown, there are hundreds more SQGs across the state that are still producing a considerable quantity of hazardous waste.

116

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 3.5 Distribution of Maine’s 50 largest hazardous waste generator facilities (Source: MDEP, 2011a)

117

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

We ranked the ten largest hazardous waste generators in descending order of quantity of hazardous waste generated (Table 3.4). We found that they collectively account for over three-quarters of Maine’s total hazardous waste, with the US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard contributing approximately 40% and the Callahan Mines contributing approximately 17% (Table 3.4). Callahan Mines has been designated as the fourth largest hazardous waste generator facility in the state, with only 6% of total hazardous waste contribution. As the leading generator facility, the US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard generated nearly 12 million pounds of hazardous waste in 2011 alone. Although this site generated a disproportionately higher quantity of hazardous waste – over twice of that generated by Callahan Mines – the percentages of total hazardous waste of the remaining eight facilities are more similar. Texas Instruments Inc., the state’s third largest hazardous waste generator facility, contributes 4% of total hazardous waste, while the tenth largest hazardous waste generator facility, the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station in Cutler (NCTAMS), contributes 1% (Table 3.4). Of the ten largest hazardous waste generators, four of them are military facilities. Refer to Appendix 3.4 for a more extensive list of the top hazardous waste generators in Maine.

Table 3.4 The ten largest hazardous waste generator facilities in Maine (Source: MDEP, 2011a) Quantity of Waste Generated Percentage of Rank Name of Facility Town (lbs) Total Waste (%) US Portsmouth 1 Kittery 11,992,605 39.7% Naval Shipyard 2 Callahan Mines Brooksville 5,047,583 16.7% Texas Instruments 3 South Portland 1,053,800 3.5% Inc. 4 Evonik Cyro Inc. Sanford 649,498 2.2% US Naval Air 5 Brunswick 617,919 2.1% Station Maine National 6 Guard Bangor Bangor 596,000 2.0% Training Range Webster 7 Intermediate Auburn 501,357 1.7% School 8 Pratt & Whitney North Berwick 479,070 1.6% General Dynamics 9 Armament Saco 468,155 1.6% Systems 10 NCTAMS Lant Det Cutler 418,618 1.0% Transportation Almost all generators of hazardous waste also ship hazardous waste to a treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), the final destination of waste in the hazardous waste stream. In order to ensure the safe transportation of hazardous waste, RCRA authorizes the EPA to provide detailed standards for regulated hazardous waste transporters regarding packaging, labeling, reporting, and record-keeping, including their compliance with a complex manifest

118

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

system (US EPA, 2012m). Any time that transporters accept hazardous waste from generators, they must sign and date the waste’s accompanying manifest, an official document that tracks hazardous waste from its generation to its ultimate disposal. The signed manifest verifies the transporter’s receipt of the waste from the generator, which then receives a copy of it before the waste is officially shipped out of the facility.

Transporters must transport the waste to the permitted TSDF indicated on the accompanying manifest and must obtain the signature of the owner or operator of the designated TSDF. The federal manifest system administered in Maine ensures that the waste’s official shipping name, classification, toxicity, and quantity information is recorded and traceable in case of any emergency that may occur during the waste’s transportation. Furthermore, the system equips emergency responders with the transporter’s contact information so that they are aware of who is in control of the waste during any stage of its transportation (US GPO, 2011).

Maine’s Hazardous Waste Exports According to the 2011 manifests, about 2 million pounds of the 27 million total pounds of hazardous waste that Maine exported was shipped to other New England states. Massachusetts received almost half (49%) of Maine’s exported hazardous waste within New England, while Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire received the next greatest amounts of Maine’s hazardous waste respectively (Figure 3.6). We can attribute Massachusetts’ large share of Maine’s hazardous waste exports within New England to its greater treatment, storage, and disposal capacity in comparison to other New England states: according to the EPA’s RCRA database, RCRAInfo, in 2010 Massachusetts had 13 operating TSDFs (US EPA, 2010). New Hampshire received the least amount of hazardous waste from Maine out of Maine’s total exported hazardous waste to New England. New Hampshire does not have any hazardous waste disposal facilities of its own; therefore the exported waste to New Hampshire was most likely stored temporarily before being sent to a final disposal facility in another state (Michel, pers. com.). However, only 6% of Maine’s total exports are delivered to other New England states. The remaining 94% of hazardous waste exports go to other states across the country and Quebec.

119

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 3.6 Maine’s total hazardous waste exports to New England (Source: MDEP, 2011b)

Similar to New Hampshire, Maine has relatively few TSDFs, despite being the largest state in New England with a land area of roughly 30,840 square miles (US Census Bureau, 2010). The state has only three licensed TSDFs: the US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, ENPRO Services of Maine Inc., and Central Maine Power. The MDEP’s data manifest on hazardous waste exportation indicates that these three facilities combined stored and treated 2,676 pounds of in-state hazardous waste. The remaining 90% of hazardous waste generated in Maine was exported out-of-state.

Maine’s Hazardous Waste Imports Maine imports relatively little out-of-state hazardous waste, with imports totaling 2,374,197 pounds. It imports exclusively from three New England states – Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire – and Quebec, undoubtedly due to their geographic proximity. Maine imports 40,399 pounds of hazardous waste from other New England states, comprising less than 2% of Maine’s total hazardous waste imports. The remaining 98% of total hazardous waste imported into Maine comes from Quebec. As shown in Figure 3.7, Massachusetts is the leading exporter of hazardous waste to Maine among the New England states, which can be attributed to its significant industrial generation capacity and infrastructure: the RCRAInfo database indicates that in 2010, Massachusetts had 9,649 active hazardous waste generators (US EPA, 2010). Connecticut and Rhode Island, on the other hand, did not export any hazardous waste to Maine. Overall, Maine exports 11 times more hazardous waste to other states than it imports from other states.

120

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 3.7 Maine’s total hazardous waste imports from New England (Source: MDEP, 2011c)

121

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The Transportation of Maine’s Hazardous Waste in the Context of New England In comparison to the rest of New England, Maine is the second lowest shipper and receiver of hazardous waste, followed closely by Vermont. As indicated in Figure 3.8, the order of New England states remains consistent for both shipment and receipt of hazardous waste in the region.

Figure 3.8 Total hazardous waste shipped to and from New England (Source: US EPA, 2009)

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal The treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste is the most heavily regulated stage in the hazardous waste stream due to the associated human health implications of improper disposal (US EPA, 2012l). TSDFs face the most onerous requirements under RCRA: they must be designed, maintained, and operated to prevent the release of hazardous waste into the environment and therefore must develop contingency plans, emergency procedures, corrective action programs, and compliance monitoring programs (USC Title 42 Chapter 264). In the case of a hazardous waste release into the environment, CERCLA provides penalties and financial compensation (Robinson, 1986).

Hazardous Waste Treatment RCRA hazardous waste falls under the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program and is therefore labeled “restricted waste,” waste for which the EPA has established treatment standards specific to the waste material’s hazardous properties (US EPA, 1994). Treatment involves the chemical processing of hazardous waste intended to alter and destabilize its hazardous constituents.

122

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Land disposal remains the most common hazardous waste disposal practice in the US (US EPA, 2012l). Land disposal encompasses the disposal of hazardous waste into land disposal units such as landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, or land treatment units, all of which are regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA (Table 3.5). Maine does not contain any landfills that are designed to handle hazardous waste, but most of the hazardous waste that passes through Maine is ultimately disposed of in land disposal units (Nilsson, pers. com.).

Table 3.5 Types of hazardous waste land disposal units regulated under RCRA (Source: US EPA, 2012l) Type of Land Disposal Unit Description Contains non-liquid hazardous waste; must comply with inspection and monitoring Landfill requirements to prevent leakage and contamination of soil/water resources Natural or man-made depressions in the earth Surface impoundment used for temporary storage or treatment of liquid hazardous waste Non-contained accumulation of non-liquid Waste pile hazardous waste Treat hazardous waste applied to topsoil layer Land treatment unit (LTU) using soil microbes and sunlight that degrade, transform, or disable its hazardous components

Case Study The HoltraChem Manufacturing Company’s contamination of the Penobscot River with mercury and other toxic pollutants stands among the largest hazardous waste clean-up projects in state history (Miller, 2008). The chlor-alkali plant, which utilized mercury in its processes, was in operation from 1967 until 2000 (MDEP, 2012f). During that time, the facility legally and illegally released mercury into the soil on the banks of the Penobscot River (The University of Maine, 2012). In 2000, the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) and the Maine People’s Alliance (MPA) filed a lawsuit against HoltraChem and the facility’s former operator, Mallinckrodt Inc., demanding a study plan that could determine the degree of harm caused by mercury contamination and a timetable for a remediation plan to address the repercussions of mercury contamination (MPA, 2010). In November of 2008, Mallinckrodt was charged with the cleanup of mercury-contaminated soil contained in five landfills on the plant’s property, a project that is expected to cost between $100 million and $200 million (Miller, 2010). Remediation is currently underway and Mallinckrodt continues to monitor the site daily (Mallinckrodt US LLC, 2012).

Incineration is another popular treatment method that simultaneously removes the hazardous constituents from hazardous waste while reducing the volume of the waste on average by 90% (Tammemagi, 1999; US EPA, 2012f). The primary risk associated with incineration is the potential release of contaminants such as dioxins and furans into the air and the threat this poses to human health; thus it is imperative that incineration facilities implement stringent emissions controls, carefully monitor operations, and utilize the most up-to-date technology

123

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

(Tammemagi, 1999). Another drawback to the use of incinerators is the large up-front costs to construct them (Tammemagi, 1999). While the use of incineration has increased nationwide (Tammemagi, 1999), Maine does not contain any incineration facilities of its own that exclusively combust hazardous waste (Nilsson, pers. com.).

Product stewardship programs (PSPs) are another method of waste management in Maine in which hazardous waste producers are held responsible for a product throughout its lifecycle and all potential impacts of the product are addressed. Producers cover and manage the costs of collecting, transporting, reusing, recycling and/or disposing of the unwanted product, and these costs are not included in the price of the product upon purchase (NRCM, 2012c). Maine’s E-waste law requires this of all electronics manufacturers and in doing so reduces the amount of toxics from electronic products sent to landfills by encouraging the re-use and recycling of hazardous waste (NRCM, 2012b). PSPs reduce the environmental and human health impacts of hazardous consumer products sent to incinerators and landfills, shift financial responsibility for collection and recycling/disposal costs from taxpayers to producers and consumers, and promote the reuse and recycling of valuable materials that would otherwise go to waste (Wagner & Bouvier, 2011). The programs also incentivize producers to minimize the toxicity of their products and maximize their recyclability in order to lower overall costs.

Trends in the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Maine’s Hazardous Waste According to the MDEP’s 2011 manifest data, over 18 million pounds, or about 61% of Maine’s hazardous waste, was ultimately disposed of in an out-of-state landfill or surface impoundment. The handling code listed as “None” in Table 3.6 indicates that the waste was most likely stored temporarily (Plummer, pers. com.); we can therefore infer that 16% of all hazardous waste was stored in Maine’s TSDFs. Approximately 11% of total hazardous waste was transferred off site, the next most popular method of handling. This is consistent with Maine’s high hazardous waste exportation rate and limited TSDF capacity discussed above. Incineration was the next most popular treatment method followed by waste fuel blending at 3.5% and 2% respectively.

124

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Table 3.6 Total quantity of Maine’s hazardous waste classified by handling code (Source: Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection, 2011d) Handling Quantity of Percentage of Total Code Waste (lbs) Waste (%) Code translation H132 18,370,989 60.9% Disposal in landfill None 4,761,928 15.8% Temporary storage H141 3,162,237 10.5% Transfer off site H040 1,061,867 3.5% Incineration and thermal destruction H050 579,948 1.9% Used as an energy fuel Retorting, smelting, and chemical H010 517,103 1.7% recovery of metals H129 501,919 1.7% Other treatment 373,430 Fuel blending before energy H061 1.2% recovery happened at another site Stabilization or chemical fixation H111 245,715 0.8% before disposal at another site H077 194,138 0.6% Other chemical precipitation H135 152,460 0.5% Discharge to sewer R02 149,066 0.5% Recycled off site Solvent recovery (distillation, H020 75,180 0.3% extraction) H071 20,896 0.1% Chemical reduction H134 8,499 0.0% Deepwell or underground injection H121 6,529 0.0% Neutralization only H075 2,478 0.0% Chemical oxidation H039 212 0.0% Reclamation and recovery for re-use

Implications

Human Health Implications Attributed to Hazardous Waste Exposure The most common modes of human exposure to hazardous waste are inhalation and absorbtion through skin. Contact with commerical wastes, such as aerosols, medical toxics, or paint materials, can lead to a number of acute and chronic health conditions. Table 3.7 displays the five most common toxic substances contained in Maine’s hazardous waste with their associated potential human health effects upon exposure. Effects range from neurocognitive and immunological to respiratory and reproductive, with exposures to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and benzene-containing waste leading to the onset of cancer. In Maine, at least 45% of total hazardous waste contains lead, while 5% of wastes contains arsenic, benzene, or chromium (Table 3.7).

The Callahan Mines in Brooksville is undergoing the cleanup of PCBs and soils containing lead and arsenic, producing enough PCBs to fill 302 truckloads of hazardous waste material within five months (Moretto, 2012). The US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, on the other hand, is the primary lead generator in the state of Maine (Table 3.4). Much of the lead it generates

125

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

comes from materials such as aerosol cans, machine coolant, coating used on boat and submarine tiles, waste gasoline, diesel, and paint solvents (US EPA, 2011). Other facilities throughout Maine that are responsible for lead generation include state and regional hospitals, hydroelectric corporations, and paper mills.

Hazardous waste from specific sources, such as waste treatment facilities, includes characteristic waste, but also poses minimal risk of exposure to individuals working outside of waste or chemical industries. As displayed in Figure 3.5, most generators of hazardous waste in Maine are situated in areas of higher industrial and urban activity, thus increasing the risk of human exposure to hazardous chemicals. Although treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) do not dispose of any hazardous waste in Maine, they mostly treat and store PCBs and heavy metals, such as lead and chromium. As Table 3.7 indicates, all of these waste types are known for their potential adverse health effects. The remaining 24% of hazardous waste that is not presented in the table include other heavy metals such as barium, cadmium, mercury, and silver, as well as hazardous waste that exhibits one of the four EPA- designated chemical properties.

Table 3.7 Human health effects from exposures to hazardous waste chemicals (Sources: MDEP, 2011e; US EPA, 2012h; ATSDR, 2012) Hazardous Quantity of Percentage of Waste Code Waste Waste (lbs) Total Waste (%) Potential Health Effects Hypertension; anemia; kidney and liver damage; hearing loss; D008 Lead 12,564,786 45.21% decreased sperm count; delayed muscle coordination Carcinogenic; suppress the immune M002 PCBs 7,278,854 26.19% system and decrease birth weight of infants Severe allergic reactions; respiratory failures; kidney and liver D007 Chromium 689,934 2.48% damage; lung cancer

Carcinogenic; disruption of normal blood production (can lead to D018 Benzene 298,589 1.07% anemia or severe bleeding); rapid heart rate; convulsions

Digestive problems; risk of D004 Arsenic 197,756 0.71% diabetes; hypotension; headaches; abdominal pain

Economic and Environmental Implications Financial benefits of high civilian employment often take precedence over the human health and environmental costs. The US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, according to Miller (2012),

126

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

generated a civilian payroll of about $408 million in 2011 for about 4,700 employees (Miller, 2012). In addition, the facility has been recognized as an integral asset to national defense and the most efficient shipyard out of the remaining four Navy shipyards in the country (Favinger, 2012). However, as previously discussed, the hazardous waste types that the US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard generates, such as lead, pose significant human health risks to workers and surrounding communities upon exposure.

State-wide initiatives such as Maine’s Product Stewardship Programs (PSPs) that have addressed hazardous waste disposal have resulted in positive environmental implications. PSPs have worked to ensure that electronic waste, the fastest growing portion of the national waste stream, is responsibly recycled so that toxic materials found in electronic consumer products are diverted from the traditional waste stream. As a result, PSPs have prevented the contamination of air, soil, and water with lead and other heavy metals. Since 2006, the state’s E-Waste law has recycled over 37 million pounds of electronic waste, prevented 4 million pounds of lead from entering landfills and incinerators, and prevented over 600 million pounds of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (NRCM, 2012b).

Increases in industrial hazardous waste generation and improper disposal yield an increase in GHG emissions (UK DEFRA, 2011). Effective and cost-efficient hazardous waste management methods can therefore mitigate atmospheric pollution. Hazardous waste decomposition within landfills creates potent GHGs, such as methane, which can impair air quality around the landfill (Tammemagi, 1999). The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) has taken initiative in monitoring annual air emissions produced by each licensed hazardous waste generator facility. As limits of GHG pollutants have been established within Chapter 137 of the MDEP Rules, air emissions must be reported when the concentration of one or more pollutant exceeds the minimum allowable threshold (MDEP, 2012c; Appendix 3.5). Scenarios State hazardous waste policies can shape the future of hazardous waste management. Political, economic, and social factors may influence the future state of industrial hazardous waste in Maine. We suggest the following three scenarios as plausible futures for industrial hazardous waste in Maine.

Excelling in Environmental Stewardship Maine’s 2010 Product Stewardship Law would set the stage for the development and implementation of a number of product stewardship programs for priority consumer products containing hazardous materials. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) and non-profit organizations such as the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) would actively work to increase awareness about the sources, types, and quantities

127

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

of industrial hazardous waste generated and transported in the state and invest in alternative waste management strategies such as hazardous waste recycling and reuse (Hamilton, 2012).

As waste generation and management continue to be regulated responsibly, Maine’s land would be preserved for alternative uses. With the closure of some of the state’s largest quantity generators, such as the US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the state government would invest more money and resources in providing new job opportunities in tourism and recreation and preserving Maine’s environment. This work would further Maine’s status as a national leader and innovator in environmental stewardship.

Business-as-Usual The small proportion of large quantity generators (LQGs) in the state would continue to produce the vast majority of its industrial hazardous waste, while disproportionately more small quantity generators (SQGs) would collectively contribute only a tiny fraction of total industrial hazardous waste. Military bases would account for the bulk of the state’s hazardous waste, which would consist of lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Ongoing clean-up projects at National Priority List (NPL) sites would continue to contribute to a steady climb in total hazardous waste generation. Maine would continue to export more of its hazardous waste than it imports. The majority of Maine’s hazardous waste would be treated or temporarily stored in-state and ultimately disposed of out-of-state. In regards to consumer products containing hazardous materials, Maine would continue to lead the nation in waste product stewardship.

Open for Business A pro-industry and anti-regulation administration in Maine would welcome more industrial development, resulting in the influx of large national corporations. This would increase the number of LQGs across the state. Over time, the total amount of industrial hazardous waste would increase and there would be a greater need for in-state hazardous waste disposal facilities. Investment in cheaper facilities, such as landfills, would transform Maine into a dumping ground for the surrounding region. Therefore, although an increase in industrial output and hazardous waste disposal facilities of this nature would provide more job opportunities, it would lower residential property values and increase the risk of human exposure to hazardous waste. Conclusions Maine’s total hazardous waste generation has fluctuated over the last decade depending on the number of remediation sites and the volume of waste cleaned up in each site. While there are two noticeable peaks present, including a record high of total hazardous waste generated in 2003, the rise in generation since 2009 has led to the second highest total of hazardous

128

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

waste generated in 2011. The state’s largest quantity hazardous waste generator, the US Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, is responsible for producing about 40% of the state’s total hazardous waste. Over half of the state’s hazardous waste is produced by the two largest hazardous waste generators and largely consists of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are highly toxic and carcinogenic. There are far more small quantity generators than large quantity generators, yet large quantity generators account for almost all of Maine’s industrial hazardous waste.

Most of Maine’s hazardous waste is exported to other states. In fact, Maine exports 11 times more hazardous waste than it imports. Overall, it stands as the second lowest shipper and receiver of hazardous waste in New England. Maine contains no hazardous waste disposal facilities of its own, but does contain three treatment and storage facilities that either temporarily store hazardous waste or transfer it off site. The state is setting standards in the region for waste product stewardship, with its E-waste law serving as a model for other states across the country. Recommendations In 2005, the federal Base Realignment and Closure committee (BRAC) considered the shipyard for closure, but the naval base was ultimately removed from the list, thanks in part to widespread congressional and public opposition. Thus, we do not think it is likely that the shipyard will face closure in the next proposed BRAC round scheduled for 2013, though we encourage further discussion about the hazardous waste that the site independently generates and support investment in alternatives. We were able to come to the conclusions we did only because we actively sought out and sorted raw data from manifests for the purposes of this report. Since our findings have such significant implications, more specific data on military waste activities in Maine should be made available to the public in a more accessible form.

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) should also further incentivize the reduction of hazardous waste in industrial processes. Because relatively few large quantity generators are generating nearly all of the state’s industrial hazardous waste, the state should continue to support small, private businesses through financial aid and compliance assistance. Currently, the MDEP Sustainability Unit, which was created in early 2012, oversees a Green Business Certification program in which lodging facilities, restaurants, and grocers can receive points for sustainable practices such as adopting an environmental policy and using non-toxic chemicals for landscaping (Krout, pers. com.; MDEP, 2012e). The program should be expanded to target larger industrial corporations that generate most of Maine’s industrial hazardous waste and should incentivize the phase-out of certain hazardous waste types that may result in significant human health effects upon exposure.

129

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Appendices Appendix 3.1 National Priority List sites in Maine (Note: * indicates federal facility) (Source: US EPA, 2012i) Site Name Town Date of Listing McKin Co. Gray 09/08/1983 O’Connor Augusta 09/08/1983 Winthrop Landfill Winthrop 09/08/1983 Brunswick Naval Air Station* Brunswick 07/22/1987 Union Chemical Co., Inc. South Hope 10/04/1989 Loring Air Force Base* Limestone 02/21/1990 Saco Municipal Landfill Saco 02/21/1990 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard* Kittery 05/31/1994 West Site/Hows Corners Plymouth 09/29/1995 Eastern Surplus Meddybemps 06/17/1996 Eastland Woolen Mill Corinna 07/22/1999 Callahan Mine Brooksville 09/05/2002 Leeds Metal Leeds 09/18/2012

Appendix 3.2 Waste code descriptions (Source: US EPA, 2012h) Waste Code Description D001 Ignitable D002 Corrosive D003 Reactive D004 Arsenic D005 Barium D006 Cadmium D007 Chromium D008 Lead D009 Mercury D010 Selenium D011 Silver D012 – D040 Other toxics M PCBs (over 50ppm) F Waste from non-specific source K Waste from specific source P/U Discarded commercial chemical products

Appendix 3.3 Quantity of hazardous waste produced by each industrial sector in Maine (Source: MDEP, 2011d) Name of Industry Quantity of Waste Generated (lbs) Shipyard 12,700,407.62 Corporation 8,008,539.28 Other State Facilities 6,725,398.34 Education/Research 1,677,448.37 Transportation 334,958.35 Retail 304,707.50 Professional Services 180,711.27 Health Services 156,847.40 Public Works 95,590.06

130

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Appendix 3.4 The 50 largest hazardous waste generator facilities in Maine (Source: MDEP, 2011a) Quantity of Waste Name of Facility Town County Generated (lbs) US Portsmouth Naval 11,992,605 Kittery York Shipyard Callahan Mines Brooksville Hancock 5,047,583 Texas Instruments Inc. South Portland Cumberland 1,053,800 Evonik Cyro Inc. Sanford York 649,498 US Naval Air Station Brunswick Cumberland 617,919 Maine Natl. Guard 596,000 Bangor Penobscot Bangor Training Range Webster Intermediate 501,357 Auburn Androscoggin School Pratt & Whitney North Berwick York 479,070 General Dynamics 468,155 Saco York Apartment Sys. NCTAMS Lant Det Cutler Washington 418,618 Lake Region High 390,629 Naples Cumberland School Fairchild Semiconductor 322,874 South Portland Cumberland Corp. Southern Maine 255,415 Saco York Specialties General Electric Co. Auburn Androscoggin 214,100 Irving Oil Terminal Inc. Searsport Waldo 179,304 Enpro Services of 177,876 South Portland Cumberland Maine, Inc. Buckeye South Portland 163,261 South Portland Cumberland Terminal Bath Iron Works Bath Sagadahoc 147,673 Praxair Surface 138,412 Biddeford York Technologies Central Maine Power- 126,564 Augusta Kennebec North Augusta HoltraChem 126,193 Orrington Penobscot Manufacturing Sullivan Schools 115,983 Berwick York Apartments Rynel Inc. Wiscasset Lincoln 99,150 Oxford Aviation Oxford Oxford 92,913 Rumford Paper Mill Rumford Oxford 89,590 The Former Cascade 83,200 Oakland Kennebec Woolen Mill Silvex Surface 78,695 Westbrook Cumberland Technology Maine Medical Center Portland Cumberland 67,745 Maine Environmental 57,249 Lewiston Androscoggin Depot, Llc. Cold Brook Energy Inc. Hampden Penobscot 54,988 Buckeye Bangor 54,182 Bangor Penobscot Terminal Maine Alum Grand Isle. Grand Isle Aroostook 51,107 Katahdin Analytical 49,860 Scarborough Cumberland Services Inc. Masters Machine Co. Round Pound Lincoln 49,360 Citgo Petroleum South South Portland Cumberland 47,698

131

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Portland Terminal Gulf Oil Limited 43,749 South Portland Cumberland Partnership J J Noble Trucking Wallagrass Aroostook 41,907 Nordx Laboratories Scarborough Cumberland 41,213 Bangor Hydro Electric 40,492 Veazie Penobscot Co. University of Southern 39,925 Gorham Cumberland Maine Maine Public Service 38,310 Presque Isle Aroostook Co. Environmental Projects 37,250 Inc. Household Skowhegan Somerset Hazardous Waste Collection Circle K #7004 Medway Penobscot 35,850 Robichauds Auto Orrington Penobscot 35,673 R H Foster Hampden Penobscot 34,279 B&S Scrap Recycling Hudson Penobscot 34,030 Pioneer Plastics Corp. Auburn Androscoggin 31,991 Northeast Coating 31,522 Kennebunk York Technologies Fairpoint Vault Portland Cumberland 30,328 Maine RS Maintenance 28,630 Limestone Aroostook Center

Appendix 3.5 Minimum thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions set by MDEP Rules, Chapter 137 (Source: MDEP, 2012b) Greenhouse Gas Air Emissions Threshold (tons/year) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 75.0 Ammonia (NH3) 50.0 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 40.0 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 25.0 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 25.0 Fine Particulate Matter (PM 10) 15.0 Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5) 15.0 Lead (Pb) 0.1

132

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Works Cited ATSDR. (2012). Toxic Substances Portal. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry: from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/. Bowen, C. F. (1998). Household Hazardous Products and Hazardous Waste: A Summary for Consumers. College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University: from http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/. ECAR. (2010). ECAR Fact Sheet for Maine Hazardous Wastes. Environmental Compliance for Automotive Recyclers: from http://www.ecarcenter.org/. EHSC. (2012). About Us. Environmental Health Strategy Center: from http://www.preventharm.org/. Favinger, L. (2012). Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Endures Through Recession. The Weekly Sentinel: from http://theweeklysentinel.blogspot.com/. Flowers, A. D., & Linderman, K. (2003). Hazardous waste disposal: a waste-fuel blending approach. Production and Operations Management, 12(3). Hall, R. M., Jr. (1983). The problem of unending liability for hazardous waste management. The Business Lawyer, 38(2). Hamilton, G. (2012). NRCM: DEP submits to 'undue industry influence' on product stewardship programs. The New Maine Times: from http://www.newmainetimes.org/. Huynh, M. (2009). Maine waste management industry taking economic hit. Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal: from http://www.sunjournal.com/. Jacobs, J. P. (2012). Obama signs e-manifest bill. E&E News: from http://www.eenews.net/. Jensen, C. D. (2012). The Three W's of Hazardous Waste: Who, Why, and Where? College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University: from http://search.proquest.com/. Kraft, M. E. (2011). Environmental Policy and Politics (5 ed.). New York: Pearson/Longman. Mallinckrodt US LLC. (2012). Moving Beyond HoltraChem. Mallinckrodt US LLC: from http://beyondholtrachem.com/. MDEP. (2005). Biennial Hazardous Waste Activities Report: 2003 & 2004 Reporting Years. Augusta, ME: Maine Department of Environmental Protection. MDEP. (2008). Handbook for Hazardous Waste Generators. Maine Department of Environmental Protection: from http://www.maine.gov/dep/. MDEP. (2009). Biennial Hazardous Waste Activities Report: 2007 & 2008 Reporting Years. Augusta, ME: Maine Department of Environmental Protection. MDEP. (2011a). Annual Generator Summary. Unpublished: Maine Department of Environmental Protection. MDEP. (2011b). Maine Waste Export by State. Unpublished: Maine Department of Environmental Protection. MDEP. (2011c). Maine Waste Import by State. Unpublished: Maine Department of Environmental Protection. MDEP. (2011d). Manifest Data. Unpublished: Maine Department of Environmental Protection. MDEP. (2011e). Manifest Waste by Waste Code. Unpublished: Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

133

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

MDEP. (2012a). About the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Maine Department of Environmental Protection: from http://www.maine.gov/dep/. MDEP. (2012b). Air Rules, Chapter 137. Maine Department of Environmental Protection: from http://www.maine.gov/dep/. MDEP. (2012c). Annual Air Emissions Inventory. Maine Department of Environmental Protection: from http://www.maine.gov/dep/. MDEP. (2012d). E-Waste. Maine Department of Environmental Protection: from http://www.maine.gov/dep/. MDEP. (2012e). Green Business Certification. Maine Department of Environmental Protection: from http://www.maine.gov/dep/. MDEP. (2012f). Mallinckrodt (formerly HoltraChem). Maine Department of Environmental Protection: from http://www.maine.gov/dep/. Miller, K. (2008). Judge won't block HoltraChem cleanup. Bangor Daily News: from http://bangordailynews.com/. Miller, K. (2010). Maine BEP backs compromise HoltraChem cleanup plan. Bangor Daily News: from http://bangordailynews.com/. Miller, K. (2012). Portsmouth Naval Shipyard economic impact. Portland Press Herald: from http://www.pressherald.com/. Moretto, M. (2012). Cleanup of toxins continues as Brooksville ponders taking ownership of Callahan Mine site. Bangor Daily News: from https://bangordailynews.com/. MPA. (2010). Post-Hearing Brief for Intervenor Maine People's Alliance. State of Maine Board of Environmental Protection: from http://www.maine.gov/dep/. NRCM. (2010). First-in-the-Nation Product Stewardship Bill Signed Into Law: Bill Evolves from Controversy to "Win-Win" for Business and the Environment. Natural Resources Council of Maine: from http://www.nrcm.org/. NRCM. (2012a). History of NRCM. Natural Resources Council of Maine: from http://www.nrcm.org/. NRCM. (2012b). Product Stewardship: A Success for Maine (Case #2: Electronic Waste). Natural Resources Council of Maine: from http://www.nrcm.org/. NRCM. (2012c). Product Stewardship: Producer-funded Recycling. Natural Resources Council of Maine: from http://www.nrcm.org/. Phillips, A. S., Hung, Y.-T., & Bosela, P. A. (2007). Love Canal Tragedy. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 21(4). Pohl, H. R., Tarkowski, S., Buczynska, A., Fay, M., & De Rosa, C. T. (2008). Chemical exposures at hazardous waste sites: Experiences from the United States and Poland. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 25(3). Robinson, W. D. (Ed.). (1986). The Solid Waste Handbook: A Practical Guide. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rose, G. (2004). Maine's Biggest Industries; Structural Overview of the Maine Economy: Maine State Planning Office. SERC. (2012). State Emergency Response Commission. State Emergency Response Commission: from http://www.maine.gov/. Smith, Z. A. (Ed.). (2013). The Environmental Policy Paradox (6 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. TAC. (2012). Toxics Action Center. Toxics Action Center: from http://www.toxicsaction.org/.

134

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Tammemagi, H. (1999). The Waste Crisis: Landfills, Incinerators, and the Search for a Sustainable Future. New York: Oxford University Press. The University of Maine. (2012). Penobscot River Water Quality. The University of Maine: from http://www.umaine.edu/. UK DEFRA. (2011). The Economics of Waste and Waste Policy. London: Nobel House. US Census Bureau. (2010). Maine. US Census Bureau: from http://www.census.gov/. US DOE. (2012). Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. US Department of Energy: from http://www.hss.doe.gov/ US EPA. (1994). Waste Analysis at Facilities that Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2009). National Analysis: The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2010). Multi-State Report (Enforcement and Compliance History Online). US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2011). Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Hazardous Waste Report: US Environmental Protection Agency. US EPA. (2012a). About RCRA. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012b). Brunswick Naval Air Station. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012c). CERCLA Overview: US Environmental Protection Agency. US EPA. (2012d). Characteristic Wastes. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012e). Cleaning up in New England. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012f). Combustion. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012g). Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012h). EPA Hazardous Waste Codes. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012i). Final National Priorities List (NPL) Sites - by State. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012j). Green Electronics. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012k). Hazardous Waste. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012l). Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Units (LDUs). US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012m). Hazardous Waste Manifest System. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012n). History of RCRA. US Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012o). Land Ban Provisions of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/.

135

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

US EPA. (2012p). Listed Wastes. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012q). Loring Air Force Base. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012r). Our Mission and What We Do. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US EPA. (2012s). Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. US Environmental Protection Agency: from http://www.epa.gov/. US GPO. (2011). Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act: report (to accompany S. 710) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Wagner, T. P., & Bouvier, R. (2011). Maine Voices: Strengthen Maine's product stewardship laws. Portland Press Herald: from http://www.pressherald.com/.

136

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The State of Voluntary Certification Programs in Maine

Carla Aronsohn and Noah Teachey

Executive Summary

The State of Voluntary Certification Programs in Maine is the fourth chapter in The State of Maine’s Environment 2012, a report produced by the Domestic Environmental Policy Group in the Environmental Studies Program at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. This is the seventh State of Maine’s Environment report published since 2004.

Perceived gaps in the regulation of some economic activities as well as public interest in supporting environmentally sustainable practices have led to the growth of voluntary certification programs throughout the country. In this report we assess four certification programs in Maine: LakeSmart, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). We selected these programs for comparison because they vary in focus, scope, and standards. We created six criteria to compare these different certification programs. We found that transparency, specificity, and source of funding were important factors in determining the success of a certification program. We conclude that by effectively considering economic, social, and environmental concerns, voluntary certification programs show the capacity to significantly benefit environmental sustainability in Maine. We recommend that Maine consider creating a certification advisory board to help adapt global and national standards to Maine. Certification programs should provide annual reports and increase visibility and transparency to enhance demand for the programs and help consumers make informed decisions. Education about consumer choices in regards to environmental sustainability should also increase to encourage demand for these programs. Certification programs, while non- governmental, depend upon state and national entities for funding and support; therefore, state government can influence the future success of these programs and the state should carefully consider this role.

Introduction

Consumption of goods and services, particularly those associated with extractive industries, accounts for more than two-thirds of gross domestic product (GDP) in the US (National Research Council, 2010). The global demand for energy, food, and other goods is constantly rising, straining the natural and human capital requisite for production. Regulation is one avenue by which environmentally sustainable practices might be implemented, but it

137

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

frequently fails to be both far-reaching and specific enough to effectively manage potential environmental threats. Additionally, command and control approaches are costly and inefficient to enforce, thus they are generally not the only means by which stakeholders, or individuals and groups interested in a topic, engage environmental sustainability (Farmer, 2007).

Another means of shaping more environmentally sustainable practices that has gained momentum in the past 20 years is voluntary certification programs. These soft law mechanisms contrast with hard law in that they are not regulatory but nonetheless combine the public’s interest in establishing standards of sustainability with mechanisms for the measurement of compliance (Steering Committee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessment of Standards and Certification, 2012). Voluntary Certification Programs

Voluntary certification programs involve establishing standards through collaboration of stakeholders and experts in various fields. Sustainability standards in particular are built around the objective of preserving natural resources. In the case of certified organics, for example, the resources in question are soil and water quality, human health, and a number of other considerations. Standards consist of objectives that define practice or performance criteria that can then be assessed using compliance indicators (Steering Committee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessment of Standards and Certification, 2012). For example, various energy savings criteria for appliances make up the standards of ENERGY STAR, a program administered by the US Department of Energy (DOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the primary objective of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases produced by the consumption of fossil fuels (Sanchez, Brown, Webber, & Homan, 2008). A product must perform at or above an established standard during its review in order to obtain the ENERGY STAR label (US EPA, 2012).

After establishing standards, the next step is assessing compliance. Whether compliance is evaluated using a first-party or third-party assessment, there must be some means of performing an audit or certification. Without the assurance that all parties are complying with a uniform standard, the certification program loses credibility. A certification body is charged with assuring that certified parties are complying with the standard (Steering Committee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessment of Standards and Certification, 2012). Returning to the ENERGY STAR example, the EPA and DOE ensure compliance through a third-party certification process that involves extensive product testing in an EPA-certified laboratory and measures a number of variables relating to energy use and cost. The quantifiable nature of the variables considered by ENERGY STAR allows for some degree of uniformity in the review process (US EPA, 2012). This uniformity lends credibility to the ENERGY STAR label.

138

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

We investigated voluntary certification programs in the state of Maine in order to determine what factors promote or discourage the adoption and growth of these programs. In order to understand how voluntary certification programs are used in Maine, we researched and evaluated four that we deemed suitable for capturing a representative sample of the programs active in the state. We chose LakeSmart; two forest certification programs, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI); and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). LakeSmart is only present in the state of Maine, and is the newest of the certification programs we evaluated. Forest certification programs are of particular interest to the state because of Maine’s prominent forest products industry, although the forest certifications we discuss are national and international in scale. Our consideration of forest certifications allows us to account for commercial motivations and competing programs. The built environment, consisting of the various buildings in which most people spend the majority of their time, is by no means restricted to Maine, but LEED’s presence in the state allows for comparisons across the rest of New England and the US. Objectives

We describe how each voluntary certification program works and compare similarities and differences that influence program efficacy. The characteristics we consider in our evaluation of each program include its specificity, adaptability and responsiveness, transparency, assessment variability, complexity, and source of funding. After evaluating the programs based on these characteristics we draw conclusions regarding their use and value. We then consider possible scenarios for the future of voluntary certification programs and make policy recommendations based on our findings. Maine’s Lakes

Maine contains 5,784 lakes, which cover nearly one million acres (Maine DEP, 2010a). These lakes are used for recreation, drinking water, and tourism. Maine has more lake acreage, better water quality, and fewer invasive aquatic plant infestations than any other New England state (d'Hemecourt, Patel, & Sarkar, 2010). Nonetheless, a trend towards greater eutrophication threatens Maine lakes (Shannon, Pers. Comm.). Eutrophic lakes are those containing a relatively large quantity of biologically active nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. These nutrients encourage the growth of algae and thus result in a decline in water quality. Oligotrophic lakes, on the other hand, are relatively unproductive due to nutrient-poor water. Mesotrophic lakes occur somewhere in between eutrophic and oligotrophic lakes, and dystrophic lakes (also known as humic lakes) have brown-colored water due to high concentrations of humic substances and organic acids (Cain, Bowman, & Hacker, 2011). Of 1,923 lakes assessed as part of the Integrated Water Quality and Assessment Report conducted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

139

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

in 2010, 670 were eutrophic, 129 were oligotrophic, 1,122 were mesotrophic, and 2 were dystrophic (Maine DEP, 2010a). LakeSmart

The LakeSmart program grew out of the dual recognition that development along Maine’s lake shorelines was bringing with it reduced water quality and that regulatory standards were inadequate to stem the decline. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began meeting with lake protection leaders throughout the state in 2001 to develop a program that would lead shorefront property owners to engage in best management practices (BMPs) such as the use of erosion control mulch on paths and minimization of driveways and parking areas. Their aim was to encourage the widespread adoption of the program through the incorporation of rewards, recognition, and peer pressure (Welch & Smith, 2010).

In analyzing the 2000 Maine Lake Users Survey and quantitative phone surveys dating from 1996, Maine’s DEP and lake protection leaders determined that their target audience was “concerned but lacking knowledge on cause and effect, looking for easy fixes, [and] retired” (Welch & Smith, 2010). In order to best serve the target audience, the developers designed LakeSmart to support improvements to the landscaping and structural housekeeping practices of shorefront property owners. The program’s designers included free workshops on BMPs, site visits by neutral, third-party experts, and awards for good examples of lake conservation behavior in their model in order to enhance its applicability to homeowners (Welch & Smith, 2010).

The BMPs specified by LakeSmart range from relatively inexpensive and unobtrusive to those that are more burdensome in terms of cost, time, and behavioral change. Less costly BMPs might include cleaning up pet waste and planting a rain garden or vegetated buffer along the border of a lakefront property meant to catch nutrient-rich runoff. More expensive examples include stabilizing or rebuilding a stretch of eroded shoreline or replacing a malfunctioning septic system. Not only do these BMPs differ in cost and intrusiveness, they also vary widely in their ability to prevent runoff. A wide range of BMPs are included in the LakeSmart model to increase the likelihood that a broad audience will be willing to partake in simple conservation activities and, upon completing them, become inspired to take on more costly and effective projects (Welch & Smith, 2010).

In 2003, after communicating with stakeholders and conducting focus groups and field research, the DEP completed the LakeSmart program design. That same year, it began providing free workshops and property evaluations. The program was based on the threshold model, in which property owners wishing to receive the LakeSmart Award were required to obtain a minimum number of points within each of four sections addressing the different types of BMPs (Steering Committee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessment of Standards and

140

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Certification, 2012; Welch & Smith, 2010). LakeSmart’s developers hoped that the visibility of the LakeSmart Award sign and various BMPs would encourage other members of the lakeshore community to seek out participation in the program, leading to a greater degree of self-sustenance for LakeSmart. Thus, the DEP aimed for 15% of the lakeshore community to obtain the award upon its introduction to a lake (Welch & Smith, 2010).

By 2012, the DEP had spent over $1 million on LakeSmart and had distributed fewer than 500 awards. The participation was deemed insufficient to justify the cost. DEP decided, therefore, to cease funding the program, and handed it over to the Maine Congress of Lake Associations (COLA), citing the credibility of COLA and its capacity to run the program at a lower cost (DePoy-Warren, Pers. Comm). Maine’s Forests

Maine has been covered by approximately 18 million acres of forest since the 1600s, with small dips from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s (Irland, 1998) . Maine has 90% forest cover, which is the highest percentage of forest cover in any state (Mansius et al., 2005). Presently, 95% of Maine’s forested area is considered productive forestland, and Maine’s use of this forestland makes it a top producer of wood products in the Eastern US and Canada (J.D. Irving, 2011) . Forest-based industry has been a driving force of Maine’s economy.

Forests have been important to Maine’s economy from the origins of Maine ship building in the 1800s, to the production of biomass as a primary source of energy in the early 1900s, to the present in which paper, lumber, biomass energy, furniture, and forest-based recreation are booming (Keeping Maine’s Forests Steering Committee, 2010). Maine’s dependence on the economic, environmental, and social benefits of forests drives forest stakeholders to continue to work to maintain the health and sustainable future of forests in Maine. One way of doing this is through forest certification. Forest Certification

Forest certification started in the 1990s with the growing concern over rapid deforestation in tropical forests. In 1990, about 17 million hectares were removed globally at more than an acre per second due to deforestation (FAO, 2010). Discussions among environmental non- governmental organizations (NGOs) were held parallel to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit with the goal of developing a system for certifying and labeling forest products (Perera & Vlosky, 2006). Forestry certification was largely driven by discontent with the failure to agree upon global governance regarding forests in Rio, and it was concluded that private sector implementation would be more effective (Bernstein & Cashore, 2004). Forest certification enables consumers, when purchasing wood products, to make a conscious decision to support sustainable growth and harvesting of trees.

141

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The term certified wood has become synonymous with sustainable wood (UNECE & FAO, 2012). North America is a leader in forest certification, containing 51% of the about 975 million acres of forest certified globally (UNECE & FAO, 2012). The Northeastern US is known for its commitment to forestry, especially Maine, which has the greatest number of acres of certified forest in New England and is second in the US only to Minnesota (Levesque, Kingsley, Quigley, Renaud-Evans, & Rockwell, 2008) .

Forest certification, is important for the environment because it promotes the protection of biodiversity, water quality, and well-functioning ecosystems. Healthy forests also provide humans with important services like enhancing air quality and moderating the climate. Sustainable forestry practices are also critical to the economy, especially in Maine, where the forest products industry contributed $4.3 billion directly and indirectly to Maine’s GDP which is 8.9% of the total GDP (MFS, 2010). Supplying management plans for sustainable forestry is imperative for the future of Maine’s forest industries.

There are a variety of certification schemes used in Maine, but the most common are: Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), American Tree Farm System (ATFS), and Master Logger Certification. We will address the two most frequently used certification systems, FSC and SFI. These are compared because of their popularity but also as an important comparison between two competing programs that focus on the same issue in a different way.

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

In 1993, FSC, a voluntary non-profit, was formed with the input of foresters, timber users, and environmental and human rights groups. These stakeholders collectively emphasized the need for an international method of identifying products coming from sustainably managed forests (Perera & Vlosky, 2006). As a multi-stakeholder, non-government agency, FSC builds standards and criteria collaboratively. FSC started with 26 participating countries, including the US (FSC, 2011). It now operates in 80 countries, making it the world’s largest independent third-party voluntary forest certification organization. Globally, FSC has certified about 412 million acres of forests (FSC, 2012a). FSC certifies through independent third-party certifiers. These FSC-accredited third-party certifiers audit and certify various aspects of forestry, including the land/forest, landowner, mill, or company. The organizations in Maine that certify for FSC are Scientific Certification Systems, Smartwood, Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS), and Trust to Conserve Northeast Forestlands. Third-party certifiers issue certificates based on ten principles. Both FSC and SFI offer chain-of-custody certification, in which a final wood product is confirmed to meet standards in every aspect of production from forest to wood fiber. FSC has three chain-of-custody labels: pure (100% certified), recycled (85% post-consumer), and mixed (blend of pure, recycled, and controlled sources) (GreenBlue, 2010).

142

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)

SFI was founded in 1994 by the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA). SFI has a significant backing from industry including many paper corporations and also the US Department of Agriculture. The certification program is recognized in North America and Canada. SFI is the largest certifier of forests in the US and holds the most certificates in Maine forests. SFI built its standards around the paper industry and a broad range of stakeholders are not involved. SFI also uses third-party certifiers. In 2005, after much criticism from environmental groups, SFI strengthened its chain-of-custody standard. Prior to this, the weak, unpopular standard blocked SFI’s access to international markets (Stryjewski, 2007). LEED

The built environment is one of the largest resource-intensive areas of the economy, and is responsible for 37% of all energy consumed in the US, as compared to the 28% consumed for transportation (Cidell, 2009; National Research Council, 2010). Lighting, climate control, and ventilation are three of the many aspects of the built environment that require energy inputs. Also of concern in today’s built environment is indoor environmental quality, as noxious emissions, off gassing from the evaporation of harmful substances in building materials, and pathogens have the potential to cause harm to building occupants (National Research Council, 2010).

Since its founding in 1998, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), a third party certification scheme overseen by the US Green Building Council (USGBC), has become the accepted benchmark for the evaluation and designation of sustainable construction. The program’s standards have been modified since their inception, allowing input from stakeholders in the areas of design, construction, and environmental sustainability to inform the program’s development (Cidell, 2009).

Methods

We conducted a literature review of voluntary certification programs and the environmental issues that affect the specific programs we researched. This framed our understanding of how certification programs function in Maine and the reasons why the programs we examined are important to the state. We gradually narrowed our research to the detailed workings of each program and how similarities and differences among them influence their efficacy.

143

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

LakeSmart

Owing to the relative newness and small scale of LakeSmart, there is very little in the way of literature on the subject. Aside from a DEP report published in a 2010 edition of Lake Line magazine, the bulk of information came from an interview with Maggie Shannon of Maine’s Congress of Lake Associations (COLA), a database of LakeSmart evaluations and awards we obtained from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and a recording of a focus group from the summer of 2012. Ms. Shannon was able to provide us with background information, insight on the current state of the program, and her own views on how LakeSmart might be transformed to better meet its objectives. The database provided us with the ability to make quantitative statements regarding the program’s progress prior to the transition from DEP to COLA management. Additionally, a separate database of property screenings and evaluations informed our understanding of how the evaluation process might be made more user-friendly. The focus group, composed of Belgrade Lakes watershed residents, provided us with personal experiences with the LakeSmart program and insight regarding how it might be improved. Forest Certification

We gathered data and information about forest certification from publications by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Maine SFI, and Maine, Forest Service (MFS). To learn more about the current state of forest certification programs in Maine we contacted Patrick Sirois, the Director of the Maine SFI Implementation Committee and Maine Forest Service Land Outreach Coordinator, Andy Shultz. The James W. Sewall Company provided us with GIS layers of SFI and FSC forest certification that we compiled into a map using ArcMap10 to visually represent the areas of Maine that are certified. We obtained data on major lakes, rivers and boundaries from Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) and forest cover data from the United States Geologic Survey Land Cover Institute. LEED

We obtained the LEED for New Construction and LEED Certification Policy manuals from LEED Online, the website through which project administrators obtain educational resources and process registrations and certifications. To supplement our technical understanding of the program we met with project managers from the physical plant department at Colby College. These LEED Certified professionals were able to inform our research regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the program in Maine. To analyze the status of the LEED program in Maine, we began with a database of LEED-registered projects obtained from the USGBC website. The original database contains every LEED-registered project as of October 25, 2012, as well as data regarding location, registration date, certification date, points achieved,

144

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

certification level, owner type, project type, and LEED system utilized (New Construction, Schools, Healthcare, etc.). We filtered out projects outside of New England and then filtered out projects outside of Maine, so that we were left with two datasets relevant to our research.

Laws and Institutions

Voluntary certification programs are by their nature rarely regulated. In fact, it is generally a lack of regulation that allows for and even necessitates their emergence. Nevertheless, some federal and state laws have helped set the stage for the introduction of voluntary certification programs by establishing incentives or regulations that indirectly aid in the adoption of a program’s standards. We describe some of the most relevant laws and institutions below. LakeSmart

Maine’s Program Implementation Law (1991) requires best management practices (BMPs) to be applied to agricultural, forestry, transportation, and development sites in order to mitigate non-point source pollution. There is no such legislation pertaining directly to the conservation activities of individual property owners, thus an absence of regulation has permitted the emergence of LakeSmart.

In defining the 250-foot shoreland zone surrounding Maine lakes and mandating the establishment of zoning ordinances at the municipal level, the Shoreland Zoning Law (1971) helped to set the stage for the LakeSmart program. Without these mandatory construction zones, houses would likely crowd lakeshores, leaving no room for the mitigation of nutrient- laden runoff through BMPs.

The federal Clean Water Act (1972), Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), and Maine Standards for Classification of Lakes and Ponds Law (1985) established water quality standards that pertain to Maine’s lakes (d'Hemecourt et al., 2010). All lakes in Maine are required to be of such quality as to allow for a variety of uses including drinking, recreation, and fishing. Further, quantities of biologically productive nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous must be stable or declining so as to prevent excessive algal growth.

The Standards for Classification of Lakes and Ponds Law (1985) and Great Pond Law (1973) established the precedent for treating Maine’s lakes as public resources. The potential for these public resources to become public liabilities in the event of water quality decline played a major role in motivating the development of LakeSmart. The DEP realized that mitigation of non-point source pollution was less costly than the restoration of declining lakes, thus it was willing to fund a program that could help facilitate lake water quality conservation (Shannon, Pers. Comm.).

145

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Table 4.1 Selected federal laws that impact LakeSmart (source: State of Maine’s Environment 2010)

Law Year Description Location

Establishes water quality standards to facilitate the protection Clean Water and management of the nation’s water bodies; requires each USC Title 33 1972 Act state to create a 303(d) list of impaired waters; enforced by the §1251-1376 EPA

Safe Establishes safe limits for contaminants in drinking water; USC Title 42 Drinking 1974 outlines rules, schedules, and methods for water-testing and §1400-1465 Water Act treatment; enforced by the EPA

Table 4.2 Selected state laws that impact LakeSmart (source: State of Maine’s Environment 2010)

Law Year Description Location

Mandates that municipalities issue zoning ordinances to govern where different types of development are MRS Title Shoreland Zoning Law 1971 permissible and defines the extent of shoreland areas 38 §435 as they pertain to great ponds

Grants public access to all water bodies classified as MRS Title Great Pond Law 1973 great ponds (lakes 10 acres of larger if natural and 30 38 §436-A acres or larger if man-made)

Standards for Establishes all lakes as class GPA waters that must MRS Title Classification of Lakes 1985 be suitable for multiple designated uses including 38 §465-A and Ponds Law drinking water, recreation, and aquatic habitat

Requires the implementation of BMPs to reduce non- Program MRS Title 1991 point source pollution related to agricultural, wood Implementation Law 38 § 410-J harvesting, transport, and development activities Forest Certification

Both FSC and SFI state that their certification standards must comply with all federal and state laws. The following are selected federal laws that impact forest certifying bodies by setting the stage for current forestry practices.

The National Forest Management Act (1976) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess national forests and create a management plan. This law is important because it brought long term forest practices to a national scale.

The Lacey Act is the first law in the US to ban trade of illegal wood products (FSC, 2012b). This has important international consequences for certification programs, as certification could be a means to verify the source of wood products and thus increase demand for forest certification. In July of 2012, the RELIEF act was proposed to the House of Representatives,

146

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

and this would have lessened the punishments set by the Lacey Act. FSC, forest product companies, and conservation groups, among others advised Congress not to support the RELIEF Act. Ultimately it did not pass the House of Representatives (FSC, 2012b). If the Lacey Act were weakened this would put negative pressure on the price of forest products, making it less economically feasible to make the investments required to for certification (FSC, 2012a).

The following are selected state that protect and sustain Maine’s forests.

Especially important is the Tree Growth Tax Law (1972), which lowers taxes for landowners who sign a contract to manage their land sustainably and hire a forester to plan and supervise forest harvests (Archeson & McCloskey, 2008).

The Maine Forest Practices Act (1989) forbids clear-cuts of over 50 acres, which helps alleviate deforestation. In 1999, the State Forest Service passed a law requiring an annual forest inventory to prevent underreporting of the amount of forestland harvested. This proactive approach to protecting Maine’s forests is also demonstrated by citizens who demand certified forest products to be assured their purchases are from environmentally friendly practices.

The Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) (1971), originally established as the Land Use Regulatory Commission (LURC), is the planning and zoning authority for the townships of Maine without local governments. Most certified land in Maine is within the LUPC jurisdiction, so forest certification bodies must comply with LUPC’s land use regulations.

Government initiatives play a key role in the advancement of certification programs. In Table 4.5 we describe selected important interventions by Maine governors in these programs.

Table 4.3 Selected federal laws that impact forestry and forest certification in the United States Law Year Description Location Multiple-Use States that national forests are to be administered for USC Title Sustained-Yield 1960 activates such as outdoor recreation and timber. 16 § 528- Act 531 Revised the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called National Forest USC Title national forests to implement management of Management 1976 16 § 1600- renewable resources; requires the Secretary of Act 1614 Agriculture to assess national forests and create a management plan. Considered one of the first conservation laws. It 1900, USC Title provides penalties for illegal trade of plants and Lacey Act amended 16 § 3371- animals. In 2008 the law was expanded to include 2008 3378 illegal logging.

147

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Table 4.4 Selected state laws that impact forestry and forest certification in Maine

Law Year Description Location

Land that has trees that will be harvested for commercial use is assessed and if it meets the standards of the Woodland MRS Title Tree Growth Tax Management Plan, property tax will be reduced. An 1972 36 § 571- Law important chapter of this law is the Forest Regeneration and 584-A Clear-cutting standards, which require oversight of clear- cutting by the Maine Department of Conservation.

Maine Forest Promotes and regulates sustainable forestry; aims at MRS Title 1989 Practices Act “substantially eliminating” liquidation harvesting. 12 § 805

Require that a landowner notify the Bureau of Forestry Forest before a clear-cut, allowing the Bureau of Forestry to set MRS Title Regeneration and standards for what can be cut; also works to create a 1999 12 § 805, Clear-cutting regeneration plan for the forest re-growth. This standard is sub-c. III-A Standards important to the timber product industry and keeps landowners looking to the future use of forests. Maine Land Use Formerly Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC), now Planning called LUPC as of 2012. It functions as a regulating entity for MRS Title Commission 1971 the unorganized territory northern Maine. Requires permits 12 § 206 (LUPC) for timber harvesting.

Table 4.5 Selected government intervention in forest certification in Maine

Policy maker Year Description

Addressed the 2001 forest certification conference, came out in support for Governor 2001 forest certification programs and praised the Bureau of Parks and Lands for Angus King receiving dual certification of FSC and SFI (MFS, 2005).

Launched the Maine Forest Certification Initiative, to build Maine’s forest industry by improving forest management and distinguishing Maine products Governor John 2003 (MFS, 2005). He initiated a report about the current state of forest certification Baldacci in Maine in 2005. Baldacci set a goal of reaching 10 million certified acres of forest in Maine by 2008.

Released an executive order expanding forest certification in new or Governor Paul expanded government buildings to not just FSC (which would be recognized 2011 LePage by LEED) but to SFI, American Tree Farm System, and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Systems (LePage, 2011). LEED

In 2003, Governor John Baldacci issued an executive order requiring the incorporation of LEED practices into new or expanding state buildings (Baldacci, 2003). Governor Baldacci issued the order shortly after Maine passed the Energy Conservation in Buildings Act (2003).

148

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The order requires greater energy efficiency in new or substantially renovated government- owned buildings. Another law establishing an energy efficiency standard in Maine buildings is the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code, which replaced the various municipal building codes in Maine in 2008. In setting energy efficiency standards similar to those that form part of the LEED system, these laws initiate the process of standard compliance and thus make the transition to LEED a smaller step for building owners.

The Energy Policy Act (2005) is designed to incentivize, rather than require, energy efficiency in buildings. It established a tax deduction that reduces the initial cost of installation for owners of commercial buildings who employ energy-efficient climate control, lighting, and water heating systems. A similar federal law designed to incentivize energy efficiency in buildings is the Energy Independence and Security Act (2007), which established an office within the Department of Energy to create programs designed to promote energy efficiency in a variety of building types. At the state level, the Loans for Energy Efficiency Improvements in Municipal and School Buildings Law (2007) establishes a program to finance energy efficiency improvements in schools and municipal buildings. The Property Assessed Clean Energy Act (2009) allows for the same type of program in municipalities to help pay for improved energy efficiency in homes and businesses. While these incentives do not necessarily lead to the adoption of LEED, they do help lessen the cost of sustainable building design features that fall within LEED systems and make certification more financially viable.

In 2011, Governor Paul LePage issued an executive order requiring new or expanding state buildings to incorporate “Green Building” standards that consider forest products certified under SFI, FSC, American Tree Farm System, and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification systems equally (LePage, 2011). As LEED currently only assesses credits for FSC-certified forest products, this executive order has the potential to complicate the Maine state government’s commitment to the program as established by Governor Baldacci’s 2003 executive order.

Two pending federal laws that would supplement already established energy efficiency legislation are the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (2011) and the Smart Energy Act (2012). The former would create a loan program to help finance energy-efficient upgrades in manufacturing buildings, whereas the latter would establish a similar loan program to help finance upgrades to commercial, multi-family residential, industrial, municipal, government, education, and healthcare buildings. All of the aforementioned buildings are LEED-certifiable construction types, thus a federal law that establishes a financial incentive to pursue energy efficiency could bolster LEED participation in Maine (American Architectural Manufacturers Association, 2012).

149

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Table 4.6 Federal laws that impact sustainable building in Maine

Law Year Description Location

Establishes the Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings USC Title 42 Energy Policy Act 2005 Tax Deduction, which incentivizes more energy- § 13201 et efficient building design features seq.

Establishes the Office of Commercial High Energy USC Title 42 Performance Green Buildings within the Department Independence and 2007 § 17001 et of Energy, meant to help promote energy efficiency in Security Act seq. commercial and public buildings

Table 4.7 State laws that impact Sustainable building in Maine

Law Year Description Location

Requires designs for new or substantially renovated state buildings to include reduced Energy Conservation in MRS Title 5 2003 energy-use targets and life-cycle cost analyses that Buildings Act §1764-A consider public health and environmental benefits associated with energy-efficient building design

Loans for Energy Establishes the Efficiency Partners Program which MRS Title Efficiency Improvements finances energy audits and cost-effective energy 2007 30A §5953- in Municipal and School efficiency improvements to help decrease energy C Buildings Law costs in municipal and school buildings

Provides for an energy efficiency expert on the Maine Uniform Building governor-appointed Maine Technical Building MRS Title 2008 and Energy Code Codes and Standards Board and requires energy 10 §1103 efficiency reporting in consumer reports

Allows for the establishment of Property Assessed Property Assessed Clean Clean Energy (PACE) programs by municipalities MRS Title 2009 Energy Act to help homeowners and businesses afford 35-A §99 renewable energy and added energy efficiency Stakeholders

Voluntary certification programs in the state address a variety of topics and affects a wide range of people, thus there are numerous types of stakeholder involved. LakeSmart

The LakeSmart program is managed by a certification body, supported by conservation groups, and implemented by evaluators.

150

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Program Administration

The Maine DEP funded, developed, and administered LakeSmart from the program’s inception in 2001 until the transfer of administration to the Maine Congress of Lake Associations (COLA) in 2012. Prior to taking on management of LakeSmart, COLA helped to promote the program and served as a forum for discussing lake conservation and other related issues. With its new administrative role, it will be responsible for managing all aspects of LakeSmart, making any necessary changes to the program, and procuring the funding to ensure its continued operation (Shannon, Pers. Comm.).

Lake Associations and Conservation Groups

The partnership between the DEP and individual lake associations further benefited the program, as it permitted the use of a volunteer pool. Upon taking on LakeSmart, lake associations agreed to promote it, avoid instituting other big programs that might compete with it, and encourage at least 15% of property owners to obtain the LakeSmart award within three years (Welch & Smith, 2010). The Belgrade Regional Conservation Alliance is a conservation group and land trust that also supports LakeSmart. Its Youth Conservation Corps Program employs high school students over the summer to work on homeowner requested erosion control projects. The labor is provided to the homeowner free of charge, thus further incentivizing the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) on shoreline properties (Belgrade Regional Conservation Alliance, 2012).

Table 4.8 Stakeholder groups that influence Maine’s LakeSmart Program

Institution Founded Description Type

Maine Congress of The only statewide network of individuals and Nonprofit, Lake Associations 1970 lake associations with the sole purpose of charitable (COLA) protecting and preserving lakes. organization

Maine Department Protects Maine’s natural resources and enforces State of Environmental 1972 its environmental laws—has been responsible government Protection for implementing the LakeSmart program organization

Dedicated to conserving the lands, water quality, Belgrade Regional and natural heritage of the Belgrade Lakes Umbrella Conservation 1988 Watershed through land conservation, organization Alliance (BRCA) watershed management and protection, and land trust education, and outreach

Provides labor of high school students free of Youth charge to homeowners requesting erosion Summer Conservation 1996 control projects such as buffer plantings and program Corps shoreline stabilization

Partnership between DEP and 33 lake Nonprofit Lake Associations associations across southern Maine facilitated organizations LakeSmart prior to defunding by DEP

151

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Evaluators

Soil and Water Conservation District staff members initially made up the bulk of LakeSmart’s professional evaluators, but as it aged, other neutral, third-party evaluators began aiding the program. Evaluations completed by volunteers save the program money, as the Soil and Water Conservation District employees must be paid for the time they spend on evaluations. Volunteer screeners became an active part LakeSmart in 2009 as part of a three- year pilot program meant to add power and flexibility without adding cost (Maine COLA, 2011). Screeners visited properties prior to evaluators so as to identify weak areas and make suggestions before the formal evaluation in order to increase the likelihood that only one evaluation would be necessary for each LakeSmart award. Forest Certification

FSC and SFI have similar stakeholders but there are some important differences in the leading actors. FSC uses a committee of stakeholders that equally represent social, economic, and environmental chambers to develop standards and criteria (Stryjewski, 2007). SFI has moved from a dependent board of directors, the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), to an independent board in 2007. This new board includes equal acknowledgement to SFI participants, environmental organizations, and forestry organizations (Stryjewski, 2007). Important stakeholders of forest certification include large industry, environmental NGOs, state and federal agencies, landowners, local communities, social interest groups, and trade organizations. It is notable that FSC has a commitment to Indigenous People’s rights stated in their 10 core principles, while SFI lacks a transparent stance on such criteria, which has led to increased social pressure on SFI standards. Governmental Organizations

The Maine Forest Service provides a disclaimer at the bottom of all its webpages that refer to forest certification. It reads: “The Maine Forest Service does not endorse any particular forest certification system” (MFS, 2005). It is notable however, that copious information on the Maine Forest Service webpage cites the Service’s commitment to forest certification and desire to help consumers choose certified wood products. As mentioned earlier, Governor John Baldacci launched the Maine Forest Certification Initiative and initiated the establishment of a Certification Advisory Committee (MFS, 2005). Government commitment to Maine certification programs can also be seen in the Maine Department of Conservation’s Bureau of Parks and Lands, which has certified 575,000 acres of public land (SFI, 2010b). The Bureau of Parks and Lands’ forestry practices have been certified under both FSC and SFI (Bureau of Parks and Lands, 2011).

152

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Industry

Large corporations manage most certified forests because they have better access to information and markets, scale economies, and abilities to bear risks and costs (Bass, Thornber, Markopoulos, Roberts, & Grieg-Grah, 2001). Large timber retailers have helped certification take off so quickly. Home Depot prefers FSC as an element of their corporate responsibility assurance. SFI is heavily supported by the large paper corporations in Maine like Hearst, Verso, and Time Incorporated. Because SFI was started through the AF&PA it is an industry-driven program that has the support and resources to be successful, so even though SFI is not largely consumer driven it maintains industry support. The high price of certification creates a barrier to entry for small corporations that are buying or selling wood to achieve forest certification.

Environmental NGOs

Many environmental groups prefer FSC’s collaborative approach to SFI’s industry driven approach (Lansky, 2002). Environmental groups that have publicly supported FSC practices include the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the National Wildlife Federation. The Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) favors FSC and has publicized the largest fine in Maine’s forest history against Plum Creek Timber, an SFI certified company, for breaking 18 violations of the Maine Forest Practices Act (NRCM, 2006). NRCM wrote a letter to the SFI board asking that they suspend Plum Creek’s SFI certification in Maine (NRCM, 2006). Watchdog groups like Greenpeace, FSCwatch, ForestEthics, and Treehugger support FSC as the best option for preserving the health of the world’s forests. These groups play an important role in educating consumers about forest practices and products. They help prevent “greenwashing,” a term that describes business practices and marketing that put up the façade of being more environmentally friendly than they are, by putting pressure on companies that incorporate unsustainable practices. The Rainforest Action Network has successfully pressured Home Depot to endorse FSC (Stryjewski, 2007). This is significant for Maine as there are 10 Home Depot locations throughout the state. LEED

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is reliant on administration by the certification body, input from professionals, demand by building owners, and vendors of sustainable services and materials.

Program Administration

The US Green Building Council (USGBC) was formed in 1993 as a non-profit organization for the promotion of sustainable building practices. It began development of the LEED

153

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

program in 1994 and released the first version of LEED for New Construction in 1998. It has since continued developing the program with input from a variety of stakeholders. The Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) originated in 2008 with the support of the USGBC. Since its inception, it has taken over management of the LEED Professional Accreditation process and the LEED Certification process for buildings and spaces.

Professionals

With the professional accreditation offered by the GBCI, the demand for LEED Accredited Professionals has become a factor in finding employment for project managers. Some organizations will only hire an individual with the necessary LEED credentials (DeBlois, Pers. Comm.). The credentials offered by GBCI include LEED Green Associate, LEED Accredited Professional with specialty (ranging from building design and construction to neighborhood homes), and LEED Fellow (USGBC, 2012a). This has changed the market for designers, architects, and construction professionals. It is necessary in the design and construction of any LEED project that professionals involved in the implementation of sustainable design practices understand how the LEED process works. An appropriate background and a unified vision allow for a more efficient and effective design and construction process that yields a greater number of credits (DeBlois, Pers. Comm.).

Building Owners

Building owners often have a vested interest in sustainable building design because of the potential benefit to their business or organization in the form of branding, tax incentives, or efficiency. College campuses, for example, benefit from LEED Certified buildings because the certification contributes to a “green” image that is increasingly attractive to prospective students and the general public (DeBlois, Pers. Comm.). Businesses might choose to move in the direction of sustainable design due to savings in electricity and water that will add up to outweigh the costs of pursuing a LEED certification. Regardless of the reason, more and more building owners are choosing to adopt sustainable design through LEED and thus hold a stake in the program.

Vendors of Sustainable Services and Materials

As a result of increasing demand from building owners, the market for sustainable services and materials has grown. For example, a prerequisite in LEED for New Construction is an area dedicated to storage of various recyclables (USGBC, 2012b). While the cost of recycling collection was once significantly higher than that for regular garbage pickup, growing demand has made it more economically feasible to provide this service to more customers and at a lower cost (DeBlois, Pers. Comm.). Providers of sustainable services and materials thus have a stake in LEED because it encourages the purchase of their products.

154

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

State of LakeSmart

LakeSmart is currently undergoing a transition in management from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to the Maine Congress of Lake Associations (COLA) (Hongoltz-Hetling, 2012). As a result, the established standards and the process for assessing compliance with these standards are likely to change before the program resumes operation in 2013 (Shannon, Pers. Comm.). While it remains unclear how the program will function in the future, the remodeling will certainly be informed by lessons learned from its previous forms, thus an evaluation of the state of the program up to this point will be useful in drawing conclusions, scenario planning, and making recommendations for the future. The Program under DEP

LakeSmart is an example of a small voluntary certification program, thus it will vary with the others we researched in several areas of our framework. Figures 4.1 and 4.2, found at the end of the State of LakeSmart section, display data from the program as it was administered by the DEP.

Specificity

As a program developed and implemented in the southern half of Maine, LakeSmart is specific to a single region and environmental focus. It is sensitive to the unique needs of the people and environment of southern Maine. Between 2003 and 2012, the statewide demand among lakefront property owners for the LakeSmart program grew, but the DEP limited the number of participant lake associations in order to guarantee that it could properly serve property owners at participant lakes and not overwhelm its institutional capacity (Welch & Smith, 2010).

Evaluation

The four areas scored in a LakeSmart property evaluation were: road, driveway, and parking areas; structures and septic system; lawn, recreation areas, and footpaths; and shorefront and beach areas. Each criterion within an area of focus was assessed on a scale of zero to three and counted toward the total points for the section. A property was required, under the threshold model, to perform adequately in all four sections in order to receive the LakeSmart Award, but if a property only succeeded in three sections, the DEP would send a certificate of commendation along with recommendations for additional work that a homeowner might complete in order to achieve the Award at a later date (Welch & Smith, 2010). As this system has a binary result, meaning a property owner either receives the Award or does not, one or two points could and sometimes did mean the difference between passing and failing the evaluation. Additionally, some criteria on the evaluation form were difficult to quantify,

155

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

causing variability in responses, such that if multiple evaluators visit the same site, they might view the same criterion and score it differently (Lovell & Teachey, 2012). Multiple instances of this variability resulted in frustration among people attempting to achieve the LakeSmart Award (LakeSmart Focus Group, 2012).

Responsiveness and Adaptiveness

The LakeSmart evaluation form and process were reviewed every year since the program’s inception, and some changes were made over time. Between the 2005 and 2010 versions, the relative importance of each section to the LakeSmart Award changed due to a shift in the number of criteria per section and the resulting number of available points per section. The minimum number of points required for the LakeSmart award remained virtually unchanged, but the relative importance of sections changed as there were fewer criteria in section three (lawn, recreation areas, and footpaths) and more in section four (shorefront and beach areas) (Maine DEP, 2010b). The shift in relative importance of each section is the result of input from stakeholders.

Trained staff with the Soil and Water Conservation Districts of Maine carried out the property evaluations from the program’s origin until its transition (Welch & Smith, 2010). A source of professional evaluators is a valuable asset to a voluntary certification program, yet the inconsistencies across evaluator responses hindered the program. Additionally, professional evaluations represent a bulk of the program’s cost of $100,000 per year (Shannon, Pers. Comm.). A great deal of the approximately $2,000 spent on each property evaluation went towards the salaries of state employees (Depoy-Warren, Pers. Comm.). A pilot program in the Belgrade Lakes watershed introduced volunteer labor into the evaluation process, resulting in 72 awards and 75 commendations from 2009 to 2011. This method cut costs, which is of critical importance to small programs. It also engaged stakeholders to a greater extent, as it facilitated conversations among peers regarding lake conservation in contrast to the previous dynamic of conversations between state government employees and homeowners (Maine COLA, 2011). The Transition

The primary threat to a small program like LakeSmart has been the exhaustion of state funding. Now that the state is no longer funding the program, however, its new management has the opportunity to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.

The new program will begin with a drastic reduction in size, serving 10 lake associations instead of its previous 33 (Hongoltz-Hetling, 2012). So far, COLA has obtained three grants to help pay the costs of the program, which are expected to amount to approximately $60,000 per year in the beginning, $40,000 less than the amount required to run it under the DEP. COLA aims to add ten lakes to the program each year over the course of the next seven

156

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

years, provided it is able to secure sufficient funding and interest among stakeholders (Shannon, Pers. Comm.). The new management intends to experiment with different models for the program’s redesign. COLA may utilize a tiered approach similar to that found in the LEED system. The overall goals are to increase transparency, stakeholder engagement, and responsiveness in order to make LakeSmart more dialogue-oriented than the program was previously (Shannon, Pers. Comm).

Figure 4.1 The number of LakeSmart-awarded properties over time (source: Maine DEP)

157

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 4.2 LakeSmart participant lakes prior to the management transition (source: Maine DEP)

158

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

State of Forest Certification

Process and Trends of Forest Certification

In order to receive forest certification, a landowner or mill owner must contact a certification body and have an independent audit team review the management practices both on site and on paper to determine if the standards of the program are being met (Maine SFI, 2004). Both FSC and SFI have detailed literature for certification; SFI has 118 indicators based on its 14 core principles and FSC-US has 192 indicators, based on its 10 principles that assess the state of viable certification. In a review of the clarity of these indicators in Canada for the two certifications by an assessor, 10% of SFI criteria and 17% of FSC criteria were found to be difficult to understand (UPM, 2005). Below is a table of the core principles that the two programs use to certify forests.

Table 4.9 Core principles of FSC and SFI certification (FSC, 2012a; SFI, 2010a)

SFI Principles FSC Principles

1. Sustainable Forestry 1. Compliance with Laws and FSC Principles

2. Forest Productivity and Health 2. Tenure and Use Rights and Responsibilities

3. Protection of Water Resources 3. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

4. Protection of Biological Diversity 4. Community Relations and Workers’ Rights

5. Aesthetics and Recreation 5. Benefits from the Forest

6. Protection of Special Sites 6. Environmental Impact

7. Responsible Fiber Sourcing Practices 7. Management Plan

8. Avoidance of Controversial Sources 8. Monitoring and Assessment

9. Legal Compliance 9. Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forests

10. Research 10. Plantation Management

11. Training and Education

12. Public Involvement

13. Transparency

14. Continual Improvement

159

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

In Maine, FSC and SFI have increased since their inception in the early 1990s, but SFI has increased much faster and continuously than FSC. As can be seen in figure 4.3, SFI holds the most acres certified in Maine. Notable gaps in data can be seen from 2006-2010, in which FSC data was not made publically available for Maine.

Some of the largest landholders in Maine are SFI certified: Plum Creek Timber Company, which is in the Moosehead Lake region, holds about 900,000 acres. On the other hand, Prentiss & Carlisle Management Co. owns 764,487 acres of FSC certified forest near Bangor (MFS, 2011). J.D. Irving, which own over 1 million certified acres in Aroostook and the Allagash, is dual certified with FSC and SFI. These land owners have different objectives which lead to different preferences. Paper suppliers tend to be SFI certified, while forest used for retail wood products tends to be FSC certified. An increasing number of paper mills in Maine are accepting both FSC and SFI. Dual certification in Maine is in response to consumers demanding different products. This dual certification exemplifies good forest practices and also market response to consumers’ demands

Public land certification by the Bureau of Parks and Public Lands, has also been important to modeling sustainable forestry. There is notable certified public land including Baxter State Park (Figure 4.13).

Figure 4.3 Acres of forest certification by FSC and SFI, and total certified acres by year (James W. Sewall Company, 2012; Mansius et al., 2005). The dotted line represents trends where data were unavailable.

160

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 4.4 Areas of certified forest in Maine (source: (James W. Sewall Company, 2012)

161

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Comparison to Other New England States

Maine has both the most forest cover and the highest percent of certification for its forests in all of New England (figure 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7). New England states, like Rhode Island, have no certified forest, while states like Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire have comparatively large tracts of certified forest. Of Maine’s forest cover, 4 million acres are FSC certified and 6 million are SFI certified (James W. Sewall Company, 2012).

Figure 4.5 Forest cover in New England States (source: US Geologic Survey Land Cover Institute)

162

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Figure 4.6 Total acres of forest cover in New England states (Alvarez, 2007)

Figure 4.7 Percent of total forest cover within each New England state that is certified by FSC or SFI (source: (Alvarez, 2007; James W. Sewall Company, 2012)

Maine has the highest percent of its forests certified out of New England states for a variety of reasons. The huge tracts of industrial private land are more feasible to get certified because of their size and ownership. Maine is dominated by privately owned land (Lilieholm, Irland, & Hagan, 2010). Large private timber owners in Maine like Time Inc., Sappi, Hearst, and Verso Paper have contributed to certified forests in Maine. Maine is experiencing a shift in woodland ownership that started in the 1980s, from industry owned timber to Timber Investment

163

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Management Organizations (TIMOs), which prioritizes multi-use (Lilieholm et al., 2010). Small private land, which is defined as less than 5,000 acres, holds much less forest certification than large private forests.

Also Maine’s government has played a positive role in influencing increase in certification. Multiple Governors have publicly supported forest certification, and the Maine SFI implementation committee has helped SFI prosper in Maine. The committee promotes specificity in adapting SFI standards to Maine, and it also promotes training programs that enhance foresters’ knowledge. Major Similarities and Differences between FSC and SFI

Transparency and chain of custody are shared goals for SFI and FSC currently, but the two goals are not shared equally. SFI has recently increased its transparency but remains hidden when it comes to lists of stakeholders on their webpage. FSC has implemented chain-of-custody since its inception, and SFI started chain-of-custody in 2005 (Stryjewski, 2007).

Cost of these programs differ but are hard to quantify because of varying factors, such as land size and location. In the certification of forests maintained by the Bureau of Parks and Public Lands, the inspection costs for FSC averaged $0.17/acre and for SFI averaged $0.13/acre (Pressley, Cubbage, & Siry, 2003).

SFI and FSC differ in their ecological standards. For example SFI sets a limit of 120 acres for a single clear-cut, and FSC sets a limit of 80 acres for a single clear cut (Fernholz, Bower, Stai, Bratkovich, & Howe, 2011). SFI has historically had a bad reputation among environmental groups but pressure from environmental NGOs to have companies and individuals endorsing FSC has resulted in SFI adapting stricter standards.

SFI is more prominent in Maine than FSC because it is run by paper and pulp companies that operate in Maine. SFI also has fewer barriers to certification including standards that are easier to understand the standards, less expensive, more relaxed standards. SFI also has its own Maine board of directors that help adapt the program to Maine in specificity.

State of LEED

The Process

LEED certification, as outlined on the website for the US Green Building Council (USGBC), is a five-step process.

164

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Rating System Selection

The LEED program has been responsive to stakeholder input since its inception and has grown more sensitive to economic and functional considerations over time as a result. One way it has done this is through the development of multiple rating systems to address needs specific to some projects but not others. The rating systems currently available under the most recent update include LEED for New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell Development, Retail, Schools, Homes, Neighborhood Development, and Healthcare. Over 80% of LEED buildings fall under the New Construction rating system, so we will draw our specific examples from that rating system (Cidell, 2009).

Project Registration

After selecting a rating system, the project manager is prompted to confirm that the project will meet the Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) of the specified rating system by the time the project application is submitted for certification. There is a $900 registration fee for members of the USGBC and a $1200 fee for non-members (USGBC, 2011). The registration fees are often implicated when organizations advertise “LEED equivalent” standards in their building projects (DeBlois, Pers. Comm.). Upon completion of this process, the project administrator gains access to the LEED Certification Application (USGBC, 2012a).

165

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Table 4.10 Minimum requirements for certification in LEED for New Construction (source: USGBC)

MPR Description

The project building or space and all real property within the LEED project Must comply with boundary must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local building- environmental laws related environmental laws and regulations.

Must be a complete, permanent building or No mobile building or space may pursue LEED Certification. space

The LEED project boundary must be made up of all contiguous land associated with and supporting the normal building operations, must belong Must use a reasonable to the same owner as the LEED project, can only be attributed to a single site boundary LEED project, and cannot be gerrymandered to unreasonably exclude sections of land.

Must comply with No new construction of under 1,000 square feet may pursue LEED minimum floor area Certification. requirements

Must comply with minimum occupancy The LEED project must serve at least one full time occupant. rates

Must commit to sharing For a period of five years beginning on the first date of regular physical whole-building energy occupancy a LEED Certified project must commit to sharing energy and and water usage data water usage data with the USGBC and/or GBCI.

Must comply with a The gross floor area of the LEED project must be no less than 2% of the minimum building area to gross land area within the LEED project boundary. site area ratio. Certification Application Submission

LEED is a documentation-based verification program. Each rating system is essentially a list of documentation requirements, and each certification application must be accompanied by certain documents, attestations, data, or other information in order to sufficiently demonstrate that each minimum program requirement (MPR), prerequisite, and credit has been satisfactorily fulfilled (GBCI, 2012). MPRs are minimum requirements that a project must possess in order to be eligible to begin the LEED certification process (USGBC, 2011). Prerequisites are similar to MPRs in that they are required and count for no points, but they are more specific to topics. Topics are the broad groups into which credits are organized. They include sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, innovation in design, and regional priority. After each MPR and prerequisite is attended to, designers and project managers adapt building plans with attention to the LEED rating system in order to achieve as many credits as possible within each topic. Upon the completion of the of the project’s construction, a project administrator submits the compiled documentation and a review fee which varies depending on the size of the project.

166

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Table 4.11 Prerequisites for certification in LEED for New Construction (source: USGBC)

Topic Prerequisite Description

Requires the creation of an erosion and sedimentation Sustainable Construction Activity control plan for all construction activities related to the Sites Pollution Prevention project.

Requires the employment of strategies that use 20% less Water Efficiency Water Use Reduction water in aggregate than the water use baseline calculated for the building.

Requires that heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC&R) systems; lighting and daylighting Fundamental controls; domestic hot water systems; and renewable energy Commissioning of systems be installed and calibrated according to the owner’s Building Energy project requirements, basis of design, and construction Systems documents.

Energy and Atmosphere Requires a demonstration of improvement in energy efficiency through a Whole Building Energy Simulation, the Minimum Energy American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Performance Conditioning (ASHRAE) Advanced Energy Design Guide, or Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide.

Fundamental No chlorofleurocarbon (CFC)-based refrigerants may be Refrigerant used in the HVAC&R systems of LEED Certified projects. Management

Requires the provision of at least one dedicated area for the Storage and Materials and collection and storage of recyclables including, at a Collection of Resources minimum: paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, and Recyclables metals.

Minimum Indoor Air Requires that ventilation comply with ASHRAE standards or Quality Performance Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) standards. Indoor Environmental Environmental Requires the prohibition of smoking in and within 25 feet of Quality Tobacco Smoke the building or the provision of specific smoking areas to limit Control exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Application Review Process

GBCI conducts a technical review of the information and documentation submitted with a LEED certification application to determine whether all MPRs, prerequisites, and attempted credits have been fulfilled. The application review processes vary in requirements, schedule, and policies based on the applicable rating system and certification program (GBCI, 2012). In the case of LEED for New Construction, there are 100 possible base points in addition to the required MPRs and prerequisites. LEED Certified projects need to achieve between 40 and 49

167

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

points, Silver projects between 50 and 59, Gold projects between 60 and 79, and Platinum projects need at least 80 points (USGBC, 2012b).

Certification Decision

Following the conclusion of a final review, GBCI issues a decision regarding the certification or denial of a project. The project administrator has the opportunity to appeal the decision within 25 business days. Each appeal may address only one MPS, prerequisite, or credit, and only the first appeal is free of additional cost. With no appeal, the results become conclusive. Any third party can make a certification challenge within the first 18 months of a LEED certification if they believe the LEED project has achieved MPRs, prerequisites, or credits through fraudulent documentation. Once this period of time has lapsed, the LEED Certification is awarded for the life of the project (GBCI, 2012). LEED in Maine

LEED Certified buildings and spaces have been on the rise in Maine since 2004. Education projects taken together are the leading type of LEED project in Maine, with commercial projects coming in a close second. One potential reason for the growth in the number of LEED Certified schools is the 2007 Loans for Energy Efficiency Improvements in Municipal and School Buildings Law. This law established a program that helps finance energy efficiency investments in schools, thus helping to set the stage for LEED certification. Perhaps with similar legislation in other areas, the other project types might begin to increase in LEED certification.

Figure 4.8 Growth in LEED Certified buildings in Maine by project type (source: USGBC).

168

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

New England Comparison

Maine has the third greatest number of LEED Certified projects in New England with 78 compared to 466 in Massachusetts and 127 in Connecticut. Maine would appear at first to be lagging far behind Massachusetts and Connecticut, but consideration of population would suggest otherwise. Maine is the largest state in New England in terms of size, but its population is smaller than those Massachusetts and Connecticut. We considered the per capita number of certified projects in each state and found that Maine is slightly above the New England average but still in third place overall.

Table 4.12 Comparison of New England state populations and total LEED Certified projects

LEED Certified Per capita

State Population % of NE projects Normalized projects

VT 626,431 4.32% 58 36 0.0093

MA 6,587,536 45.46% 466 379 0.0071

ME 1,328,188 9.16% 78 76 0.0059

NH 1,318,194 9.10% 60 76 0.0046

RI 1,051,302 7.25% 44 60 0.0042

CT 3,580,709 24.71% 127 206 0.0035

Total 14,492,360 100.00% 833 833 Avg 0.0057

Another factor likely to affect the number of LEED Certified projects in the state is government involvement. Vermont, for example, enacted the Energy Act in 2009, which requires that state agencies reduce their overall consumption of energy and increase utilization of renewable energy (VSA Title 10 §6523, 2009). Vermont also redesigned its Commercial Building Energy Standards (CBES) with more stringent minimum efficiency standards. The most recent version of the standards requires that the design and construction of buildings be certified by the designer as compliant with CBES. This process is similar to LEED but restricted to energy efficiency (VSA Title 21 §268, 2011). In enacting regulations that make the next step to seeking LEED certification a shorter one, this law aids the spread of LEED adoption.

In Massachusetts, Executive Order no. 484 requires all state buildings, including public universities, to abide by standards related to energy efficiency, water conservation, and building design, among others, that correspond with but are in some cases more stringent than those of LEED (Patrick, 2007). Compared with Maine’s most recent executive order related to sustainable buildings, this rule is more likely to result in LEED certifications due to its stringency and clear, decisive language. Additionally, the Green Communities Act of 2008 in

169

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Massachusetts encourages green building design through updated codes, training, and assistance, thus combining regulation and incentive in a single piece of legislation that is more powerful than comparable Maine laws (Session Law Chapter 169, 2008). These elements at least partially explain why Massachusetts is so far ahead of Maine in LEED Certified projects.

Another potential reason Maine might trail behind other states in LEED Certified projects is the nature of LEED credits. Many credits within LEED rating systems, such as those related to public transportation, year-round use of bicycles, and rooftop gardens are just not feasible in Maine due to the climate and lack of infrastructure (Briggs, 2007). Even recycling is difficult in some areas where there are fewer businesses providing the specific recycling services required by LEED. Every credit that is inaccessible or especially expensive to a project in Maine works against the project because it limits the choices remaining for a designer and drives up costs. The lack of sensitivity to the needs of Maine’s people and environment may function as a drawback to advancing the adoption of LEED in Maine.

Figure 4.9 Number of LEED Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum projects in each New England state

170

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Implications

Maine is an interesting context for the study of voluntary certification because of the variety of resources and human interests on which certification programs focus in the state. Lakes, forests and the built environment form a unique but broad profile of subjects covered by certification programs of various scopes.

Voluntary certification programs work in place of, or in concert with, federal and state laws in Maine. While certification programs benefit from regulations and incentives that correspond to their own standards, their emergence is in part due to a perceived lack of sufficient legislation. Direct government funding can also play a role in the establishment of these programs, as we see in the case of LakeSmart. The lack of flexibility of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and demand for program expansion, however, precipitated the transfer of LakeSmart to the Maine Congress of Lake Associations (COLA). Government, therefore, still plays an influential role in these voluntary programs. It can necessitate these programs through a lack of legislation, support them through incentives for adoption, regulate partially in order to bring potential adopters one step closer to the standards, and replace programs entirely through the use of regulations that are more stringent than program standards.

Voluntary certification programs are a means of verifying sustainable practices and comparing them with a standard established through the collaboration of experts and other stakeholders. They emerge in response to a demand for verification and are thus reliant on a public that is educated in regards to sustainable choices. In the case of LakeSmart, this is demonstrated by the fact that a homeowner will not request a property evaluation without some awareness of lake water quality conservation practices. Forest certification provides an example of how preferences of educated consumers can drive competition between programs and changes in standards.

Voluntary certification programs in Maine are most effective when they are specific to Maine’s unique social, economic, and natural environment, responsive and adaptive to input from experts and stakeholders, and transparent. LakeSmart, for example, is well-suited to addressing the needs of shoreline property owners of southern Maine because it is not accountable to any other area. LEED is responsive to stakeholders through several extensive standards updates and transparent through the accessibility of all its evaluation materials online, though its lack of specificity in the case of Maine’s location and climate is problematic. A secure and neutral source of funding guarantees that programs will not be forced to shut down prior to fulfilling their demand due to exhaustion of funds. It also safeguards against a loss of credibility resulting from the acceptance of funds from a potentially biased sponsor. Needless complexity tends to add costs to the program that are not balanced by increased efficacy. Finally, programs have more credibility when the assessment process is not hampered by excessive variability in the evaluation process, as demonstrated by the negative feedback LakeSmart received in regards to several such incidents.

171

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Table 4.13 Comparison of four voluntary certification programs based on six criteria

Criteria LakeSmart SFI FSC LEED

North American International US origins, 9 program with Maine Specificity Maine-based Program with US LEED systems Implementation standard for project types Committee

Stakeholder Standards Constant revision involvement, Stakeholder regularly Responsiveness with attention to meetings with involvement, ability revised, several and Adaptability stakeholders and community to file complaints LEED updates experts members, ability to since origin file complaints

All certificates Maine annual report reviewable online, History of since 2007 and Evaluation relatively vague Transparency problems during monthly newsletter, materials public annual evaluation process standards available online reporting starting in accessible via web 2000

Standards available Costly 7 page evaluation outlining 118 Standards available documentation form with indicators, 14 outlining 192 onus, but fairly Complexity straightforward 0-3 principles, option of indicators, 10 straightforward, point scale for 1st - 3rd party principles, option of extensive point- point assessment certification or chain-of-custody based chain-of-custody assessment

Adopter pays Formerly state Non-profit, primary Non-profit, fees for Source of government, now source of funding is donations from evaluation Funding nonprofit pulp and paper private charitable process and organization industry foundations submits own documentation

Formerly low due Formally trained Formally trained to varying results and accredited third Potential Assessor foresters, loggers, among evaluators party certifiers – variability in Credibility ecologist, Master and public distrust Expert foresters assessments Logger Certification of state employees and ecologist Scenarios

Due to their relative newness in the field of environmental sustainability, the future of voluntary certification programs is uncertain. The following three scenarios represent possible futures for Maine’s certification programs.

172

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

The Lures of Green-Washing

The expansion of sustainability-geared markets depends on assurances of authenticity, but the profit margin for such industries grows substantially if these assurances can be made with less stringency. Claims of sustainability not backed by credible verification, also termed greenwashing, are already widespread in markets that utilize sustainability as a selling point. This may not be intentional, however, as green-washing may just as easily result from a program that is not specific enough in its standards. What helps to achieve the objectives of the program in one case may not in another case, and with a uniform standard these situations are addressed in the same way. In order to avoid this scenario, widespread demand for sustainable practices in industry must be paired with skepticism. Certification as Insufficient

Not all voluntary certification programs will accomplish their objectives. Overly complex programs lacking transparency will likely fail because of the difficulty stakeholders will face in engaging with them. Without stakeholder input there can be no meaningful revision, a necessary step in ensuring a program’s adaptability and responsiveness. Programs unresponsive to changes in the environmental issues to which they apply will likely be replaced by more responsive programs or other policy mechanisms such as government regulations or incentives. Remaining programs will likely be those that prove most effective at accomplishing their objectives. If extractive industries continue to deplete resources at their current rate, certification programs will be insufficient at preventing significant environmental degradation and the result may, to borrow an example from forest certification, look like green islands surrounded by denuded landscapes. The Replacement of Certification

Voluntary certification programs are “soft law” in that they help bring about change without “hard” regulation, but they also have the potential to raise awareness of environmental issues and shape demand. An unprompted decline in certification programs is not likely to occur because they are supported by growing trends in environmental awareness, the demand for credibility in the market, and the desire of individuals to be recognized for costly, environmentally sustainable actions. There is potential for their replacement, however. These programs currently function either in place of or in addition to state and federal legislation, but one potential outcome of increasing efficacy is greater public awareness regarding issues of sustainability. If public support of legislation were to follow this trend in environmental awareness and result in regulatory standards that coincide with pre-existing voluntary standards, certification programs would have to increase the stringency of their standards or face obsolescence. Greater regulation results in greater enforcement costs; this is inefficient because it fails to utilize the resources that individuals and industry are willing to devote towards certification.

173

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Conclusions

The role served by voluntary certification programs is an important one, as these programs bring awareness, standardization, and verification to issues of sustainability. They function in place of or in addition to regulation and benefit from other policy mechanisms such as incentives, but they utilize resources that individuals and companies are willing to contribute to the pursuit of more environmentally sustainable practices. Their future is not guaranteed, but as long as they continue to fulfill a need they will likely continue to be supported by experts, stakeholders, and industries. In Maine in particular, these programs have the potential to fill a useful niche formed by a lack of regulation in some areas of environmental sustainability. Increased specificity and sensitivity to the unique environment and people of Maine will help these programs to be more effective in the state of Maine.

Recommendations

Certification programs serve a similar function to regulations, yet they do not require public funding for enforcement mechanisms. It is in the best interest of government organizations, therefore, to continue to support the adoption of effective and meaningful voluntary certification programs with direct funding, incentives for adopters, and regulations that coincide with but do not replace their standards.

As voluntary certification programs emerge in response to a demand for verification, it is the responsibility of consumers to continue demanding verification of environmentally sustainable practices from industries. Provided there is a demand, companies will continue to fund these programs through the payment of evaluation fees.

In non-commercial programs such as LakeSmart, it is of utmost importance that individuals are educated regarding environmentally sustainable choices, as this education is what drives program adoption. Thus, we recommend program resources be allocated towards education and outreach in the early phases of new certification programs until they are firmly established.

Finally, the programs themselves are more effective when specific, responsive, transparent, and user-friendly. The developers of these programs should therefore aim to maximize these qualities in both new and pre-existing programs.

174

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Works Cited Alvarez, M. (2007). The State of America's Forests. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters. American Architectural Manufacturers Association. (2012). Regulatory Affairs Committee Meets to Discuss Legislation, LEED v4 Developments and EPA Initiatives (Vol. 2012). Archeson, J., & McCloskey, J. (2008). Causes of Deforestation: The Maine Case: Human Ecology. Baldacci, J. (2003). Order Regarding the use of "LEED" Building Standards for State Buildings. Maine. Bass, S., Thornber, K., Markopoulos, M., Roberts, S., & Grieg-Grah, M. (2001). Certification's Impacts on Forests, Stakeholders, and Supply Chains. Belgrade Regional Conservation Alliance. (2012). Belgrade Regional Conservation Alliance. Maine: from: http://www.belgradelakes.org. Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2004). Hard Choices, Soft Law (Vol. Non-State Global Governance: Is Forest Certification a Legitimate Alternative to a Global Forest Convention?): Ashgate Publishing Limited. Briggs, P. (2007). Following LEED: Adapting Sustainable Design to the North. LandScapes, 4. Bureau of Parks and Lands. (2011). 2010 Annual Report for Public Reserved, Non-Reserved, and Submerged Lands to the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry: Maine Department of Conservation. Cain, M., Bowman, W., & Hacker, S. (2011). Ecology (2 ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Cidell, J. (2009). A political ecology of the built environment: LEED certification for green buildings. Local Environment, 14(7), 13. d'Hemecourt, L., Patel, B., & Sarkar, S. (2010). The State of Lakes in Maine State of Maine's Environment (pp. 35-81). Waterville, Maine: Colby College. FAO. (2010). Global Forest Resources Assesment: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Farmer, A. (2007). Handbook of environmental protection and enforcement: principles and practice. London: Earthscan. Fernholz, K., Bower, J. P., Stai, S. P., Bratkovich, S. P., & Howe, J. P. (2011). Differences Between the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Certification Standards for Forest Management. Dovetail Partners Inc.: from http://dovetailinc.org/files/DovetailFSCSFIComparison32811.pdf. FSC. (2011). Achieving Balance: Forest Stewardship Council Annual Report. Forest Stewardship Council: from http://ic.fsc.org/annual-reports.341.htm. FSC. (2012a). Forest Stewardship Council. http://us.fsc.org/. FSC. (2012b). The Lacey Act and FSC. Forest Stewardship Council: from http://us.fsc.org/newsletter.239.526.htm. GBCI. (2012). LEED Certification Policy Manual: from: http://www.leedonline.com. GreenBlue. (2010). Forest Certification Matrix: from http://www.graphiccommunications.com. Hongoltz-Hetling, M. (2012). Lake protection program gets $10,000 boost from state, Kennebec Journal.

175

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Irland, L. (1998). Maine's Forest Area, 1600-1995: Review of Available Estimates. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine: from http://www.umaine.edu/mafes/elec_pubs/miscpubs/mp736.pdf. J.D. Irving. (2011). J.D. Irving Woodlands LLC - Maine Woodlands. Forest Stewardship Council: from http://fsc.force.com. James W. Sewall Company. (2012). Provided data for Maine forest certification map. Keeping Maine’s Forests Steering Committee. (2010). Keeping Maine’s Forest Based Economy: A National Demonstration Project: from http://www.keepingmainesforests.org/kmfe_proposal_sept10.pdf. LakeSmart Focus Group. (2012). [Focus Group]. Belgrade Lakes, Maine. Lansky, M. (2002). Low-Impact Forestry: Forestry as if the Future Mattered. Hallowell, ME: Maine Environmental Policy Institute. LePage, P. (2011). An Order Regarding the Use of Green Building Standards in State Buildings. Maine. Levesque, C. A., Kingsley, E., Quigley, E., Renaud-Evans, J., & Rockwell, J., Ph.D, H. William. (2008). Status of Northern Forest Region States' Forestry and Forest Products Industry. Innovative Natural Resource Solutions LLC: from www.northernforest.org/data/uploads/researchdocs/NFSEIForestryandForestProductsInd ustryReport.pdf. Lilieholm, R., Irland, L., & Hagan, J. (2010). Changing Socio-economic Coditions for Private Woodland Protection. Chapter send via email. Lovell, S., & Teachey, N. (2012). Belgrade Lakes Property Evaluation Database. Maine COLA. (2011). Volunteer Screeners Speed LakeSmart: from: http://www.mainecola.org. Maine DEP. (2010a). Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (pp. 61-66). Maine DEP. (2010b). Property Evaluation Form For LakeSmart Awards Program. Maine SFI. (2004). The Sustainable Forestry Initiative in Maine. http://www.sfimaine.org. Mansius, D., Blanck, J., Cutko, A., Lausten, K., Lord, G., Martin, C., . . . Williams, B. (2005). The 2005 Biennial Report on the State of the Forest and Progress Report on Forest Sustainability Standards: Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service. MFS. (2005). Forest Certification in Maine. Augusta, ME: Maine Forest Service. MFS. (2010). Identifying Strategies to Assist Maine’s Logging and Trucking Professionals. Maine Forest Service: from http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/pubs/pdf/logger_trucker_congress_rpt.pdf. MFS. (2011). Maine Certified Landowners and Mills. Maine Forest Service: from http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/certification/forcert_entities.htm. National Research Council. (2010). Certifiably Sustainable? The Role of Third-Party Certification Systems: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC. NRCM. (2006). Investigation Exposes Plum Creek Timber Violations. Natural Resources Council of Maine: from http://www.nrcm.org/pc_foaa_report.asp. Leading by Example Clean Energy and Efficient Buildings, Executive Order No. 484 C.F.R. (2007). Perera, P., & Vlosky, R. P. (2006). A History of Forest Certification: Louisiana Forest Products Development Center Working Paper #71. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center: Louisiana Forest Products Development Center, School of Renewable Natural Resources. Pressley, T., Cubbage, F., & Siry, J. (2003). Global Status and U.S. Costs of Forest Certification.

176

State of Maine’s Environment 2012

Sanchez, M. C., Brown, R. E., Webber, C., & Homan, G. K. (2008). Savings estimates for the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR voluntary product labeling program. Energy Policy, 36(6), 2098-2108. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.02.021 Session Law Chapter 169. (2008). Green Communities Act. Massachusetts. SFI. (2010a). Requirements for the 2010-2014 Program: Sustainable Forestry Initiative. SFI. (2010b). SFI and FSC Certification in North America - A Summary Comparison. In Sustainable Forestry Initiative (Ed.). Graphic Communications: from www.graphiccommunications.com. Steering Committee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessment of Standards and Certification. (2012). Toward sustainability: The roles and limitations of certification (I. RESOLVE Ed.). Washington, DC. Stryjewski, E. (2007). The Sustainable Forestry Initiative vs. The Forest Stewardship Council: Evaluating the Credibility of Competing Forest Certification Schemes: from http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/021/8433.pdf. UNECE, & FAO. (2012). Forest Products Annual Market Review. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: from http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/FPAMR_2012.pdf. UPM. (2005). Parallel Field Testing of Forest Certification Standards: from http://dontbuysfi.com/fileadmin/materials/old_growth/dont_buy_sfi/sfi_facts/UPM_Paral lel_Field_Testing.pdf. US EPA. (2012). ENERGY STAR: from: http://www.energystar.gov. USGBC. (2011). LEED 2009 Minimum Program Requirements. from: http://www.usgbc.org. USGBC. (2012a). LEED. from: http://www.usgbc.org. USGBC. (2012b). LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations. from: http://www.usgbc.org. VSA Title 10 §6523. (2009). Energy Act. Vermont. VSA Title 21 §268. (2011). Commercial Building Energy Standards Act. Vermont. Welch, B., & Smith, C. (2010). From Pilot to Statewide. LakeLine, 21-26.

Personal Communications

Andy Shultz, Landowner Outreach Forester, Maine Forest Service,

Dale DeBlois, Environmental Program Manager, Colby College Physical Plant Department

Margaret Shannon, Executive Director, Maine Congress of Lake Associations

Pat Sirois, Director of SFI in Maine, Maine Forest Product Council

Samantha DePoy-Warren, Director of Communications, Maine DEP

177